Janet's Conner

Janet has pass into the gates

2007-01-20T16:23:00.000-05:00

This Blog will stay open in Honor of Janet and her Family. We have lost a fighter for Veterans and the Homeless. R.I.P Janet Gluszek-Peters

Pelosi: Ney Should Resign Today

2006-10-14T19:31:00.000-05:00

"One month after Bob Ney admitted guilt to criminal conspiracy, the Republican leadership continued to keep him on the Congressional payroll at taxpayer expence. Im just one month on the Congressional payroll. Bob Ney makes more than minimum wage workers make in a year. Now the Republican leadership is keeping him on the Congressional payroll at taxpayers expence for another month. Two months is far to long."

"Clearly , Mr. Ney's judgment has been impaired for a long time: He broke the law, he denied it and blamed others, and now he has admitted his quilt, he refuses to step aside."

"It's time for Mr. Ney and the Republican leadership to act responsibly. Mr. Ney should resign today.

People how much more do you need to see and hear . ITS TIME FOR CHANGE!!!!

Pelosi: Nuclear North Korea 'Sould be First Priority Concern of the World'

2006-10-09T14:57:00.000-05:00

"Given North Korea's abysmal proliferation record, reports of a successful test of a nuclear weapon should be a first priority concern of the world."

"The recently passed defence authorization bill requires President Bush to appoint a high level coordinator for North Korean policy. That appointment should be made immediately. Other nations whose policies on North Korea have also clearly failed, such as China, must urgently develop new approaches as well"

Pelosi: On Jack Abramoff an White House Officials

2006-09-29T14:55:00.000-05:00

Pelosi Statement on New Report Jack Abramoff's Attempts to Influence White House Officials.

"For months ,White House officials have refused to be straight with the American people about Jack Abramoff. Now we know the truth: disgraced lobbyist traded perks and campaign contributions for special access to the Bush White House."

"The American people deserve better. The Republican culture of corruption is so entrenched in Washington that the Republican cannot bring themselfs to pass lobby reform legislation even in the face of these extraordinary scandals. It's clearly time for a new direction to restore integrity to Congress."

Dam right it is

Bush Administration Shortchanging Veterans Mental Health Funding

2006-09-28T16:28:00.000-05:00

Washington ,D.C.- The Bush Administration failed to fully fund its promised $300 milion to address gaps in access and quality of mental health services for veterans over the last two years, according to Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings delivered to a House committee today.

Preliminary findings of the GAO study, requested by Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), show that the Department of Veterans Affairs(VA) actually budgeted only half (approximately $53 million) of the $100 million committed to mental health care initatives in fiscal year 2005. VA also claimed to allocated another $35 million in FY 2005 through a general fund, but GAO found VA did not notify networks that these funds were to be used for [ mental health ] plan initiatives and that medical center officials were unaware that any portion of their general allocation was to be specifically used for mental health strategic plan initatives. VA did not distribute the remaining $12 million of the promised $100 million because VA officails claimed there was not enough time to distribute the monies,GAO said.

Fot fiscal year 2006, GAO found that VA failed to distribute all of the promised $200 million for additional mental health care staff, allocating only $92 million for new initiatives and $66 million to continue efforts from FY 2005. GAO reported that it is unclear whether VA medical centers will actually spend all of the FY 2006 mental health care strategic plan funds.

GAO preliminary findings reveal that , contary to Administration's claims, there is no accountability for spending the resources required to fulfill VA's own mental health plan and address the mental health care needs of veterans. The Administration has critically shortchanged veterans by failing to spend needed funds to address gaps in access and quality of mental health care, instead offering false claims that VA is ready and able to provide these serives, said Ranking Member of Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health. Clearly ,our oversight of the VA's implementation and delivery of mental health services will have to be more vigorous.

One in three veterans returning from Iraq and Afghistan who come to the VA has mental health care concerns.

copy of GAO report here
http://veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/109th/pdf/9-28-06gao.pdf

Hear John Laesch on J Dennis Hastert

2006-09-27T11:30:00.000-05:00

John Laesch is running against Speaker of The House J Dennis Hastert. With your help John can beat him. To donate go here http://www.john06.com

To hear John go here http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/92606LaeschJohn.mp3

Reported NIE Shows War in Iraq has hindered Our Ability to Combat Terrorism

2006-09-26T20:22:00.000-05:00

"Media reports last weekend disclosed a consensus judgment of senior officers from across the intelligence community that the war in Iraq was having serious negative impact on our efforts against terrorism.Rather than reducing the number of terrorists worldwide and lessening the motivation of terrorist to attack the United States, the war in Iraq is having precisly the opposite affect.

"These conclusions are reportedly contained in the National Intelligence Estimate published last April. They are precisely the professional judgments that should have informed our debate through the spring and summer on the situation in Iraq and the best way to go forward. Sadly, they did not and President Bush has left the public with the false impression about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

"We did not invade Iraq to fight terrorism as the President would now have us believe but we're less safe today because the war in Iraq has hindered our ability to make progress in combating terrorism. The reported NIE makes that case clearly.

"As the House prepares to debate critical funding bills for the Department of Defence this week, we need to consider fully the assessments of our intelligence agencies on terrorism. That is the reason I offered the motion to resolve the House into secret session. It was regrettable, but not surprising given the record of Congressional Republicans on oversight of anything connected with Iraq, that motion was rejected.

"We have asked all Members to se the NIE and engage in secret session to debate it, to stipulate to a set of facts on it. Our disinguished members have asked for hearings in their committees. They have all joined the Democratic leadership in asking Speaker Hastert to call for hearings and we also believe that the entire NIE should be declassified."

Pakistan denies coup rumours while Musharraf away

2006-09-24T15:04:00.000-05:00

Islambad--- Pakistan on Sunday denied rumours of a coup attempt against President Pervez Musharraf while he is visting the U.S.

Newspaper office and journalist were inundated with telephone calls and text messages inquiring about the rumours, which coincided with a widespread power cut.

But television programmes did not allude to them until Geo Television ran a ticker headline saying Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani had accused " rumor mongers " of exploiting the power cut.

Reuters made checks with senior government as well as military officials, and jounalist saw nothing unusual in the capital or the neighboring city of Rawalpindi.

Durrani , who is traveling with Musharraf ,told Reuters from New York: "These rumours were sparked by the power breakdown. These are baseless. These rumours spread because televisions were off and telephones were on."

A military officail who declined to be named added : "It's totally rubbish."

hmmmmmmmm you got to wonder

Bush trying to connect Iraq to the War on Terror

2006-09-24T12:37:00.000-05:00

Then

Collaborative operational links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; 0

Estimated number of insurgents in Iraq in 2003: 5,000

Bush Administration estimates of Saddam Hussein's WMD arsenal: 18

Mobile biological weapons labs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase the stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents, 1,000 tons of chemical agent from 6,500 bombs left from the Iran-Iraq war,100-500 tons of chemical agent, high specification alumunum tubes, 36 Scud missiles (600-900 km range), R&D for a 1,200 km missile

Estimated number of al-Qaeda members worldwide in 2001: 20,000

Number of al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in five years before 9-11: 3

Now

Estimated number of foreign fighters operating in Iraq in July 2006: Between 800 and 2000

Estimated number of insurgents in Iraq in July 2006: more than 20,000

NUMBERS OF WMD's Found in Iraq: 0

Estimated numbers of al-Qaeda members worldwide in 2006: 50,000

Number of al-Qaeda attacks in the five years since 9-11 : 30

Number of days Osama bin-Laden has been at large since U.S. military operations commenced in Afghistan: 1,984

Number of audio or video tapes bin-Laden has released to global circulation since 9-11: 24

The Cost of the War in Iraq

$8.4 Billion per Month

$1.9 Billion per Week

$ 275 Million per Day

$11.5 Million per Hour

2,700 U.S. military killed in Iraq

20,000 Wounded in Iraq

Afghanistan:Rhetoric vs. Reality

2006-09-24T11:50:00.000-05:00

Then

Number of Taiban attacks from 2001-2003: 22

Number of Suicide attacks from 2001-2004: 9

Goal for number of NATO & U.S. trained soldiers in Afghan army: 70,000

Hectares in Afghanistan devoted to poppy cultivstion in 1999: 51,500

Now

Number of Taliban attacks from 2004- 2006: 284

Number of suicide attacks from 2005-2006: 64

Number of trained soldiers in the Afghan Army: About 26,900

Hectares in Afghanistan devoted to poppy cultvation in 2005: 107,000

Estimated opium produced from Afghistan's crops: 4,475 metric tons

Percent of global opiate supply originating in Afghistan : 90 %

Afghanastan: TALIBAN STRENGTH IN SOUTHERN AFGHANASTAN SURPRISED U.S. GENERAL

2006-09-22T08:00:00.000-05:00

Washington---The U.S. general commanding American forces in Afghanstan said Thursday that he had not anticipated the strength of the Taliban in the southern part of the country.

By: DPA
September 21, 2006

The Taliban has been able to take advantage of the weakness of the Afghan government in the south to establish a presence that NATO and U.S. forces have been working to roll back for months, said Lt. Genl. Earl Eikenberry.

"I don't want to at all understate the capability that Taliban has developed here, as I said, over the course of the past year in several districts and several of the provinces," Eickenberry said.

"I would have said (a year ago) that it would not be at the level that we did find this spring and summer," the Genl. said.

NATO has inflicted heavy casualties on the Taliban since Operation Medusa began and forced them to retreat and dispense, the alliance's chief commander, U.S. General James Jones, told reporters Wednesday.

He said Taliban forces fought in organized divisions against NATO and "paid a very heavy price for it." One senior U.S. official said NATO had "wiped the floor with the Taliban."

The Taliban resurgence in Afghanastan forced the U.S. military to raise its troops level there to about 21,000 and Jones has pressed NATO to send more soldiers in an effort to secure all regions of the country and assist the government in Kabul in establishing authority.

"We're still at a stage now, about four-plus years into this campaign, where the challenge is developing the government of Afghanastan, extending its influence, developing Afghan national security forces," Eikenberry said.

Defeating the Taliban has been complicated by the militia's ability to scurry across the border into Pakistan and then later launch raids.

The pourous border has been a source of tension between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, Pervez Musharraf. The two leaders were in New York this week and were to meet seperately with U.S. President George W. Bush in the next several days before holding three-way talks aimed at boosting cooperation.

Veterans Issues: "PERFECT STORM" BREWING IN MILITARY'S MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

2006-09-22T06:32:00.000-05:00

NAVY OFFICER SEES "PERFECT STORM" BREWING IN MILITARY'S MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Blasts Department of Defense for poor care and broken promises, then announces his retirement.

Stars and Stripes
By: Allison Batdorff
September 22, 2006
via: VA Watchdog

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan---Gaps in care---combined with the stress of combat in Iraq and Afghanastan---are creating a "perfect storm" within the U.S. military mental health system, according to a Navy commander who spoke at Yokosuka Naval Base on Wednesday.

Quick to say that his opinions are unofficial---the product of his 24-year military career and not the U.S. Navy or Department of Defense---Cmdr. Mark Russell gave a well-attended lecture called "Broken Promises: The Unspoken Truth of Mental Health Care in the D.O.D." during the final day of the Multinational Medical Conference.

Russell, a child psychologist and director of Educational and Development Intervention Services for bases across Japan, painted a picture of unmet needs and unrecognized opportunity stemming from the global war on terrorism.

"We are in a crisis situation," Russell said. "And it's going to get worse.

"We're making progress but are far from making good on our promise to provide the best mental health care possible for the men and women we send to war," Russell told the gathering.

More than 56,000 troops, or 10%, have returned from Iraq and Afghanastan with a mental health diagnosis, making up a third of those in Veterans Affairs care. The cost of mental health care is high, he said---the VA spent $4.3B on post-traumatic stress disorder alone in 2004.

Also, of the 9,145 (out of a possible 178,644) veterans who showed signs of PTSD between 2001 and 2004, only 22% were referred on to mental health care. That creates a chasm between a need for care and actually getting it, Russell said.

Another gap falls between D.O.D. guidelines for mental health treatment and the training given to mental health workers, he said.

"Out of 133 mental health providers I surveyed, 90% of them had no training in the top four treatments the D.O.D. recommends for PTSD," Russell said.

There are also problems with leadership, high burnout rates among caregivers and the tendency to treat those suffering from hyper-arousal compared to those who disassociate, he said.

"The bottom line is that we have increased demand and fewer resources to meet that demand," Russell said.

But the D.O.D. has made significant strides, especially in terms of front-line combat mental health care, he added. The military's PIES system---basing combat mental health care on proximity, immediacy, expectancy and simplicity---is working, he said.

"The numbers of mental haealth workers on the front lines is unprecedented," Russell said. "This is an all-out effort."

More troops are using front-line mental health services, with 40% getting help in 2005 compared to 29% in 2004. And, most importantly, 90% of those who get front-line help return to duty, he said.

The D.O.D. also has improved screening programs, has established deployment centers with quality information, is conducting more surveys and is getting more information out to veterans after they come hone, Russell said.

But the D.O.D. could be doing more for the troops, caregivers and for combat mental health in terms of treating the "invisible wounds of warfare," he said.

"Right now, the D.O.D. is in an historically unique position to lead the world in understanding, assessment, prevention and treatment," Russell said. "Have we advanced science?"

The military has a "love/hate relationship" with mental health care, he added.

"We like it in war and know that increased mental health is a force multiplier," Russell said. "But in peacetime, mental health care falls to the low end of the totem pole."

It's up to the military health professionals today to "take up the sword," he said.

"I've already turned in my retirement paperwork," he said.

Politics: STEM CELL ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

2006-09-21T08:25:00.000-05:00

Philadelphia Inquirer---Social issues dicide candidates

Abortion and stem-cell research were points of division for the Eighth District contenders.

By: Christine Schiavo
September 2006

The Bucks County audience was partisan, sporting "I Like Mike" and "Murphy '06" camapign badges. And vocal, with boos and cheers prompting the moderator to remind the crowd, "This is not a pep rally."

The spectator's questions yesterday steered the first public debate between the two candidates for Congress away from the official but broad subject of health care to more divisive issues of embryonic stem-cell research and abortion.

Incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), citing the teachings of his Roman Catholic faith, said he opposes both and believes research should focus on adult stem cells.

"My faith teaches me that it's wrong to destroy human life," he said to cheers.

"This is the clearest difference between the two of us," said Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, a proponent of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.

Calling embryonic stem-cell research a "moral obligation" of government, Murphy said, "Every person in this room is one phone call away" from needing the potential benefits.

The debate, held at King's Caterers in Levittown and sponsored by the Bucks County Courier Times and the Intelligencer, was the first of five scheduled encounters. The Eigth Congressional District covers Bucks County, portions of Montgomery County and a sliver of Philadelphia.

Moderator Guy Petroziello, editorial-page at the Courier-Times, presented the candidates with questions sent in by readers of the two newspapers or written on the spot by some of the 150 people present.

Fitzpatrick, who spent 10 years as a Bucks County commissioner, before winning his first term two yers ago, was so relaxed when the debate began that he remained seated as he answered the first question about Medicare.

His demeanor changed when Murphy, confidently pacing across the stage with microphone in hand, went on the offensive, criticizing Fitzpatrick for taking campaign contributions from the health-care industry.

An hour after the debate ended, Murphy's campaign issued a news release declaring victory.

But there was no clear-cut winner. Even Allen B. Pooler, a Korean War veteran from Lower Makefield Township who has worked on Murphy's campaign, gave his candidate a B overall.

"I don't give him an A because he didn't answer a few of the questions," Pooler said. "By not answering the questions, I don't know where he stands."

He didn't give Fitzpatrick an A either.

"When he talks about stem cells, Mike Fitzpatrick is talking as a Roman Catholic. Well, I'm not a Roman Catholic," Pooler said. "I think Murphy is looking at this issue more broadly."

Both candidates are Irish, Roman Catholic lawyers. But that's where the similarities end.

Fitzpatrick, 42, stressed in the debate---as he often has on the campaign trail---that he has spent his whole life in the district.

"I'm from Bucks County, not Washington," he said. "I grew up in Levittown."

Murphy, 32, reminded the audience of his status as an Iraq war veteran. He elicited sighs from Fitzpatrick supporters when he said that it was while walking "in my combat boots" that he decided to run for office. Fitzpatrick generated boos from Murphy's camp when he interpreted Murphy's call for insurance for all Americans, as "government-supported, socialist, universal health care."

Both candidates found fault with the new Medicare prescription plan. And both said they believe all Americans should have access to health care. But Fitzpatrick supports a cap on payouts from malpractice lawsuits, while Murphy favors tort reform without caps.

Neither candidate suggested a way to bolster Social Security. Murphy harped on Fitzpatrick's past support of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. But Fitzpatrick said he no longer favors privatization.

***Yeah..until it comes tome to vote for it! He knows that this isn't something that the people want. What else is he going to say during an election season? I would have wanted to know why he doesn't support it anymore!

Iraq: U.N.: IRAQ DEATH TOLL SURGED OVER LAST 2 MONTHS

2006-09-21T07:37:00.000-05:00

Report cites hundreds more deaths, many as a result of torture

MSNBC
September 20, 2006

BAGHDAD---Hundreds more Iraqis died in violence in July and August than in the two previous months, many of them tortured to death because of their religion with cables, acid and power drills, a U.N. report said on Wednesday.

The July total of 3,590 deaths was unprecidented, it said, while the August figure of 3,009, though lower, was also among the worst yet.

In its previous report two months ago, it gave a combined figure of 5, 818 for the two months of May and June. The latest two-month figure shows an increase of more than 13% over that number, which it described as a sharp surge at the time.

"Hundreds of bodies have continued to appear throughout the country bearing signs of severe torture and execution-style killing," it said in a statement announcing its latest report.

"Terrorist attacks, the growth of militias, the emergence of organized crime reflects a lack of centralized and authorized control over the use of forces in the country, which results in indiscriminate killings of civilians," it said.

Sunnis and Shiites were kidnapped by rival militia and tortured for information about their sect, it said.

"Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies, including the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," it said.

"Bodies found at the Medico-legal Institute often bears signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails."

Numbers game

Finding relaible data about deaths in Iraq is difficult. The United Nations obtains its figure from morgues and the Iraqi Health Ministry. Morgues no longer provide independent information to the media.

***A move made by Bush.

The U.S. report gave no breakdown for the kind of attacks that led to the deaths.

The U.S. military has said its own figure for the "murder rate" in Baghdad halved in August, but Washington has not explained how it arrived at the figure," which it says does not include deaths in bombings and mass attacks.

***Does anyone remember the "Pentagon Papers?"

Violence in Iraq worsened sharply this year after an attack on a Shiite shrine in February triggered tit-for-tat sectarian killings.

Washington says a decrease in killings in August was a result of a crackdown it launched in scattered neighborhoods in Baghdad, part of a new strategy unveiled in July to focus the efforts of its 147,000-strong force on the capital.

***But there was no decrease in August killings!

Even higher death tolls?

So far, the figures for September look likely to RISE.

Last weeks saw a surge in the number of bodies of tortured and bound victims found dumped on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. commanders acknowledge that the overall level of violence in the city has risen even if it has fallen in areas they target.

The past four days have seen a number of large-scale bombings that killed scores in cities in the northern and western sectors where U.S. troops have been drawn down to reinforce the capital.

AND U.S. COMMANDERS SAY THEY EXPECT A SURGE IN VIOLENCE WITH THE START OF THE RAMADAN HOLIDAY NEXT WEEK.

***So who are you going to beleive? Washington or the U.S. commandrs on the ground in Iraq? Boy, Bush is really flip-flopping on this one. He said he was going to listen to the boots on the ground, remember? But, because those boots on the ground aren't giving him good reports, he's going to listen to Washington! WHAT A SPACE-CADET!!!!!!!

Iraq: IRAQO LEADERSHIP FAILS TO LIVE UP TO U.S. HOPES

2006-09-21T06:18:00.000-05:00

Behind public support for al-Maliki, key U.S. leaders hint at need for change

MSNBC
September 20, 2006

Four months after Iraq's unity government took office, hope is turning to disappointment. Key U.S. leaders are hinting that Iraq's leaders must make hard decisions---and soon---if they expect American support to continue.

***Everybody knows that al-Maliki is a puppet for the U.S. He does whatever the Bush Administration wants him too. Bush is just looking for a fall-guy!

So far, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has failed to stop sectarian militias responsible for much of the bloodshed, or to make headway in luring Sunni Arabs away from insurgency.

***Isn't it time for Bush to acknowledge that there is a civil war going on in Iraq!

Al-Maliki also has run into persistent trouble from U.S. critics in Congress angry at his recent meeting with Iran's president and his refusal to condemn the Hezbollah militia, which fought Israel.

Publicly, the Bush administration continues to offer strong support for al-Maliki, with President Bush saying Wednesday he is optimistic the government will succeed. But Bush also offered a not-too-subtle hint that the American committment to Iraq and its current government is not open-ended.

***Sure he said it wasn't open-ended! It's election season! After November, he'll go back to "staying the course," that isn't working. Bush's agenda is not to leave Iraq!

The president said Iraqis could count on U.S. support "so long as the government continues to make the tough choices necessary for peace to prevail."

***There hasn't been any peace in Iraq yet!

His words are a clear signal that Washington expects al-Maliki's government to make those tough choices, including cracking down on Shiite militias---some of them led by politicians who are among the prime minister's key supporters.

***Bush dictates to al-Maliki. So if Iraq is going bad, he needs to blame only himself. (or should I say Cheney, since he's running the war!)

More agressive Militias

But rather than intimidating Shiite militias, the security crackdown in Baghdad appears to be emboldening them as sweeps of U.S. troops move closer to Sadr City, stronghold of the Mehdi Army of Shiite radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

***Which is telling us that Bush's latest strategy isn't working in Iraq!

U.S. soldiers said they have noticed militias becoming more aggressive as American and Iraqi forces seek to pacify Shiite neighborhoods on the fringes of Sadr City, which is part of Baghdad.

Even al-Maliki's supporters acknowledge the unity government has failed to gain traction but insist the prime minister is not entirely to blame.

"(He) needs a better team than the current one," Shiite lawmakers Hassan al-Suneid said Wednesday. "Some blocs want him to make some changes or replacements in the Cabinet."

Sunni lawmaker Adnan sl-Dulaimi said the problem is that the government has failed to galvanize support among tribal leaders, clerics and politicians.

That certainly is a long way from the rosy forecasts U.S. officials made six months ago as Iraqi politicians put together their government of national unity after December elections.

More, no less, violence

At that point, U.S. officials predicted a coalition of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds would give all of Iraq's communities a stake in government. Over time, they hoped that unity government would calm the tensions which threaten to plunge the country into full-scale civil war.

Instead, the first months of al-Maliki's government has been marked by violence and bloodshed, forcing U.S. commanders to send thousands more American soldiers into the Iraqi capital.

U.S. officers say privately that Iraqi commanders are themselves frustrated by the lack of direction from al-Maliki's government on how to deal with the militias, especially the Mahdi Army and others affiliated with Shiite political movements.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, appears reluctant to crack down on the militias for fear of losing support from their patrons. But without a move against Shiite gunmen, it is unlikely his government can persuade Sunni Arab insurgents to lay down their arms either.

"We're pushing this (al-Maliki) government to get a policy" on how to deal with militias, Maj. Gen. James Thurman, the commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, told the Associated Press on Wednesday.

Right now, the militias "are holding the rule of law in contempt," Thurman complained.

The message is also likely to be delivered by a bipartisan commission due to make recommendations to Bush AFTER THE NOVEMBER CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.

Former congressman Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the group, said Tuesday that the Iraqi government "needs to show it own citizens soon---and the citizens of the United States---that it is deserving of continued support."

Afghanastan: WEST WON'T WIN AFGHAN WAR

2006-09-19T08:10:00.000-05:00

U.S. AND ITS ALLIES ARE FIGHTING FIERCE PASHTUNS, NOT TERRORISTS

Toronto Sun
By: Eric Margolis
September 17, 2006

As Canadian, American and British soldiers continue to die in Afghanastan, it is time the truth be told about this ugly little war.

Much of what we've so far been told by our government and media has been untrue, wishful thinking or crass jingoism.

The respected European think tank, Senlis Council, which focuses on Afghanastan, just reported the Taliban is "taking back Afghanastan" and now controls the nation's southern half. According to Senlis, southern Afghanastan is suffering "A humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty.

"U.S. policies in Afghanastan have re-created the safe haven for terorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy," Senlis found.

Claims that withdrawing Western garrisons from Afghanastan or Iraq will leave a void certain to be filled by extremists are nonsense. Half of Afghanastan and a third of Iraq are already largely controlled by anti-Western resistance forces.

Were it not omnipotent U.S. airpower, American and NATO forces would be quickly driven from the area.

Last week, Canadian and British commanders boasted they were about to annihilate Taliban forces "surrounded" around Panjwai and Zahri. They crowed about already killing an "estimated 500 Taliban."

After a storm of bombing and shelling, British and Canadian commanders admitted "we were surprised the enemy had fled." Surprised?

"Good Morning Afghanastan!" Doesn't anyone remember the Vietnam War's fruitless search-and-destroy missions and inflated body counts? Don't NATO commanders know their every move is telegraphed in advance to Taliban forces?

Did Canadian officers making such fanciful claims really believe the Taliban's veteran querillas would be stupid enough to sit still and be destroyed by U.S. air power?

U.S., British and Canadian politicians say they are surprised by intensifying Taliban resistance. They have only their own ignorance to blame.

Attacking Pashtuns, renowned for xenophobia, warlike spirits, and love of independence, is a fool's mission. Pashtuns are Afghanastan's ethnic majority; long-term national stability is impossible without their co-operation.

What the West calls "Taliban" is actually a growing coalition of veteran Taliban fighters led by Mullah Dadullah, other clans of Pashtun tribal warriors, and nationalist resistance forces under Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister Gulbadin Hekmatyar. Many are former mujahadeen once hailed as "freedom fighters" by the West, and branded "terrorists" by the Soviets.

The UNs anti-narcotic agency reports narco-state Afghanastan now supplies 92% of the world's heroin. Production surged 20% last year alone. Who is responsible? The U.S. and NATO, Washington, Ottawa and London can't keep pretending this is someone else's problem. Drug money fuels the Afghan economy and keeps local warloards loyal to the U.S.-installed Kabul regime.

RUSSIAN INFLUENCE

Afghanastan's north has become a sphere of influence of Russian and its local allies, the Uzbek-Tajik Northern Alliance (led by notorious war criminals and leaders of the old Afghan Communist Party).

The U.S. and its allies are not going to win the Afghan war. They will be lucky, the way things are going, not to lose it in the same humiliating manner the Soviets did in 1989.

Ottawa's deepening involvement in a conflict in which it lacks any national interests---save pleasing Washington and selling lumber---jeopardizes Canada's security.

Western troops are not fighting "terrorism" in Afghanastan, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper claims. They are fighting the Afghan people. Every new civilian killed, and every village bombed, breeds new enemies for the West.

REAL SECURITY FOR AMERICA

2006-09-19T07:27:00.000-05:00

Monday, September 18, 2006

"The Geneva Convention...is just not some concept; it has saved lives...we cannot and must not and need not change the Geneva Convention in a way that would be perceived as backing out of it."

---Sen. Lindsey Graham on CBS "Face The Nation," 9/17/06

Sens. Warner, McCain, Graham, and Levin have proposed a tough, effective bill on military tribunals for detainees which meets the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Coury and keeps our troops safe.

General Colin Powell, President Bush's own Secretary of State and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warns the Bush version "would put our own troops at risk."

President Bush and Republicans continue to justify the invasion of Iraq by drawing non-existent links to the 9/11 attacks. The Bush PR campaign around the solemn anniversary of 9/11 didn't work. The American people understand the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct.

The President's Iraq policy has made us less safe and must be changed.

The war in Iraq has made our effort to defeat terrorism more difficult.

Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee report found there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

It's time for a New Direction against terrorism, not just Republicans' half-truths and scare tactics. Democrats want aggressive prosecution of suspected terrorists and judicial procedures that won't be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Office of the Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

Veterans Issues: PREDATORY LENDERS AND THE MILITARY

2006-09-19T06:49:00.000-05:00

PREDATORY LENDERS AND THE MILITARY

Why is Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), opposing legislation to protect service members?

By: Dorothy Finley and Bruce L. Dusenberry
Tuscon, Arizona
ASZTAMET dot com
via: Larry Scott---VA Watchdog dot org
September 19, 2006

It is highly unusual for the D.O.D. to ask Congress to place restrictions on private companies. But that is precisely what the Defense Dept. wants done with payday lenders, auto-loan companies and other predatory lenders.

In an August report to Congress, the Defense Dept. recommended that those firms be restricted to charging interest rates of no more than 36% per year to members of the military and their families. It also wants to prohibit companies from using postdated checks, access to banks accounts and car titles as security for loans.

The Defense Dept. gave several reasons for such an unusual request, including:

1. "Predatory lenders seek out young and financially inexperienced borrowers who have bank accounts and steady jobs, but also have little in savings (or) flawed credit or have hit their credit line."

2. Predatoy lenders target members of the military. Research has shown that lenders concentrate around military bases. Significantly, that research included Tucson, where the researchers found 12 more payday lenders around Davis-Monthan Air Force Base than would be expected based on statewide averages.

3. "Predatory lenders undermines military readiness, harms the morale of troops and their families, and adds to the cost of fielding an all-volunteer fighting force."

4. Predatory lenders charge high fees and interest.

As leaders in the DM-50 and members of Tucson's business community, we believe it is important to listen to the Defense Dept's. concerns about these companies that prey on members of our military. As a nation, and certainly as a community that hosts Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, we should all care about the well-being of the men and women who risk their lives for our country.

They deserve to be treated failry and with respect.

These bills are in Congress to address those problems, the significant of which is a bipartisan Senate amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill of 2007. This bill would cap interest rates at 36% for loans to military members and their families.

Since this provision was not included in the House version of the bill, a committee of members from both Houses is ironing out the difference. Arizona Sen. John McCain is a member of that conference committee, so he will be important to the outcome.

Unfortunately, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), chairman of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee opposes adding the provision to the defense authorization bill.

Observers believe his opposition could kill the loan-cap provision.

Buyer's spokesman said he doesn't oppose protecting service members, but that he believes any bill offering legal and financial protections for service members should first come through his Veterans' Affairs Committee.

That may be congressional procedure, but this is one of those cases where the end result---PROTECTION OF AMERICA'S MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN---is more important than whether a bill went through a particular chairman's committee.

We urge Rep. Buyer to let this bill go forward. And we urge Arizona's members of Congress, especially Sen. McCain, to back limits on predatory lenders.

After all, America's future depends on fair treatment for the men and women who volunteer to serve in our country.

***This is the time when the Republicans should be "Supporting Our Troops," like they claim they do. They need to do it by their actions and not their words, because, as we have found, there hasn't been any truth in the words of the Republicans for a very long time!

Bush Admin: RUMSFELD ADVISOR RESIGNS AS PENTAGON SHAKE-UP LOOMS

2006-09-18T13:56:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon's top special operations policy-maker is quitting in a move that several Bush administration sources say is the first negative fallout from a major reorganization of advisers in the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

***It's not Rumsfeld's advisors that "the people" want to see gone! It's Rumsfeld himself and V.P. Cheney who is running the war in Iraq.

The Washington Times
By: Rowan Scarsborough
September 18, 2006

Thomas W. O'Connell, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict (SOLIC), has told Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, that he will leave in several months. Administration officials said the generous lead time is partly political. The Pentagon does not want to be without its top special operations adviser during the November elections at a time when covert warriors are playing a leading role in hunting and capturing al Qaeda terrorists.

Mr. O'Connell's resignation comes as Mr. Edelman is instituting a reordering of his policy shop, which advises Mr. Rumsfeld on the war on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanastan, and on military relations with allies and adversaries alike.

A second of four assistant secretaries in the policy shop, former Rep. Paul McHale, who oversees homeland defense, also has informed his bosses that he will leave, although no date has been set. Officials say his departure is not related to the reorganization.

Responding to the Washington Times, Mr. O'Connell said in an e-mail that any speculation about a change "can do harm to the incumbent and prospective replacements and cause unnecessary anxiety on the part of the work force."

He added, "Any decisions taken by me were well in advance of any announcement of a [reorganization]. So there is no connection with 'unhappiness' to anything to do with SOLIC."

***So then why even mention it?

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Before the policy transformation was announced, Mr. O'Connell provided notice of his intent to depart by the end of the year."

Two sources said Mr. O'Connell's decision was influenced by the plan, which took away some responsibilities and added others to SOLIC, an office created by Congress in the late 1980s to bolster the status of special operations inside the Pentagon.

"A lot of it is based on the reorganization," said a senior administration official, who asked not to be named.

In the reorganization, SOLIC lost its advisory role on counternarcotics, such as ongoing missions in Afghanastan and Columbia. It kept overall responsibility for special operations and gained two new missions---strategic capabilities and force transformation. The latter had been handled in a special office under Rumsfeld.

Critics say these new duties are largely unrelated to special operations and will dilute SOLICs powers.

One of Mr. Rumsfeld's pet projects since the September 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda was to greatly expand the operational role of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SoCom) to turn it into a terrorist hunter. In the past, it was a supporting organization that trained and equipped Navy Seals and Army Green Berets, Rangers and the super-secret Delta Force.

Mr. Rumsfeld turned SoCom into a combatant command that can plan and execute its own operations and handed it the top job of hunting Osama bin Laden. U.S. Joint Special Operations command, at Fort Bragg, which includes Delta Force, played a major role in tracking down al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was killed by an Air Force strike in June in Iraq.

Administration officials say SOLIC, however, did not especially grow in influence to match the rise of SoCom. Mr. Rumsfeld, it is often said inside the Pentagon, is his own top adviser on special-operations matters and often talks directly to its commander, Gen. Bryan "Doug" Brown.

Mr. Edelman announced the reorganization last month. It adds a new assistant secretary for global security affairs and rearrnges the portfolios for the assistant secretaries who make policy for Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.

Mr. O'Connell is a former Army infantry officer who directed intelligence operations for Joint Special Operations Command and worked at the CIA. He assumed his current post in july 2003.

"I continue to enjoy the very high honor that allows me to associte with America's finest warriors, and if and when I depart, I really would like any departure message to be a tribute to those magnificent souls that have done so much for the nation," he said in his e-mail.

Afghanastan: SOLDIERS DESCRIBE FIGHTING IN AFGHANASTAN

2006-09-18T09:08:00.000-05:00

American soldiers in Helmand Province have described to journalists for 'The Independent' that "We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border...We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles, they have fired so many."

The soldiers went on to say that they are constantly ambushed, and in need of helicopters, but cannot get any. They have praise for the Afgham army, but say that the Afghan police force does not wish to fight the Taliban either because they are afraid to or because they are Taliban sympathizers.

New British troops have arrived to help, but France, Germany, Italy and Turkey say they have no troops to spare because of the peacekeeping effort in Lebanon. In the meantime, Pakistani troops have withdrawn from the border, after getting "a promise" from the Taliban not to cross over into Afghanastan and continue to mount attacks.

According to Lt. Gen. Richards: "You also have to think that each time we kill one, how many more enemies we are creating. And, of course, the lack of security means hardly any reconstruction is taking place now, so we are not exactly winning hearts and minds."

Mother Jones
By" Diane E. Dees
September 14, 2006

Iraq: U.S. HOLDS AP PHOTOGRAPHER IN IRAQ 5 MONTHS

2006-09-18T07:08:00.000-05:00

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Assocaiated Press photographer for 5 months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
By: Robert Tanner (AP)
September 17, 2006

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. AP executives said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find anything to indicate anappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

***I can almost guarantee you that he is being held because he seen something that the Bush administration doesn't want anybody to know about! OR, they think he knows or saw something they don't want revealed!

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, APs president and chief executive officer. "We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure."

Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide---13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom.

In Hussein's case, the military has not provided any concrete evidence to back up the vague allegations they have raised about him, Curley and other AP executives said.

The military said Hussein was captured with 2 insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, IED attacks and other attacks on coalition forces "according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

"The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities," Gardner wrote to AP International Editor John Daniszewski.

Hussein proclaims his innocence, according to his Iraqi lawyer, Badie Arief Izzat, and he believes he has been unfairly targeted because his photos from Ramadi and Fallujah were deemed unwelcome by the coalition forces.

That Hussein was captured at the same time as insurgents doesn't make him one of them, said Kathleen Carroll, APs executive editor.

"Journalists have always had relationships with people that others might find unsavory," she said. "We're not in this to choose sides, we're to report what's going on from all sides."

AP executives in New York and Baghdad have sought to persuade U.S. officials to provide additional information about allegations against Hussein and to have his case transferred to the Iraqi criminal justice system. The AP contacted military leaders in Iraq and the Pentagon, and later the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad.

The AP has worked quietly until now, believing tht would be the best approach. But with the U.S. military giving no indication it would change its stance, the news cooperative has decided to make public Hussein's imprisonment, hoping the spotlight will bring attention to his case and that of thousands of others now held in Iraq, Curley said.

One of Hussein's photos was part of a package of 20 photographs that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography last year. His contribution was an image of 4 insurgents in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms during the U.S.-led offensive in the city in November 2004.

In what several AP editors described as a typical path for locally hired staff in the midst of a conflict, Hussein, a shopkeeper who sold cell phones and computers in Fallujah, was hired in the city as a general helper because of his local knowledge.

As the situation in Fallujah eroded in 2004, he expressed a desire to become a photographer. Hussein was given training and camera equipment and hired in September of that year as a freelancer, paid on a per-picture basis, according to Santiago Lyon, APs director of photographer. A month later, he wad put on a monthly retainer.

During the U.S.-led offensive in Fallujah in Novermber 2004, he stayed on after his family fled. "He had good access. He was able to photograph not only the results of the attacks on Fallujah, he was also able to photograph members of the insurgency on occasion," Lynn said. "That was very difficult to achieve at that time."

After fleeing later in the offensive, leaving his camera behind in the rush to escape, Hussein arrived in Bahdad, where the AP gave him a new camera. He then went to work in Ramadi which, like Fallujah, has been a center of insurgent violence.

In its own effort to determine if Hussein had gotten too close to the insurgency, the AP has reviewed his work record, interviewed senior photo editors who worked on his images and examined all 420 photographs in the news cooperative's archives that were taken by Hussein, Lyon said.

The military in Iraq has frequently detained journalists who arrive quickly at scenes of violence, accusing them of getting advance notice from insurgents, Lyon said. But "that's just good journalism. Getting to the event quicker is something that characterizes good journalism anywhere in the world. It does not indicate prior knowledge," he said.

Out of Hussein's body of work, only 37 photos show insurgents or people who could be insurgents, Lyon said. "The vast majority of the 420 images show the aftermath or the results of the conflict---blown up houses, wounded people, dead people, street scenes," he said.

Only 4 photos show the wreckage of still-burning U.S. military vehicles.

"Do we know absolutely everything about him, and what he did before he joined us? No. Are we satisfied that what he did since he joined us was appropriate for the level of work we expected from him? Yes. When we reviewed the work he sent to us, we found it appropriate to what we asked him to do."

The AP does not knowingly hire combatants or anyone who is part of a story, company executives said. But hiring competent local staff in combat areas is vital to the news service, because often only local people can pick their way around the streets with a reasonable degree of safety.

"We want people who are not part of a story. Sometimes it is a judgement call. If someone seems to be thuggish, or like a fighter, you certainly won't hire them," Daniszewski said. After they are hired, their work is checked carefully for bias.

Lyon said every image from local photographers is always "thoroughly checked and vetted" by experienced editors. "In every case where there have been images of insurgents, questions have been asked about circumstances under which the image was taken, and what the image shows," he said.

Executives said it is not uncommon for AP news people to be picked up by coalition forces and detained for hours, days or occasionally weeks, but never this long. Several hundred journalists in Iraq have been detained, some briefly and some for several weeks, according to Scott Horton, a New York-based lawyer hired by the AP to work on Hussein's case.

Horton also worked on behalf of an Iraqi cameraman employed by CBS, Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, who was detained for one year before his case was sent to an Iraqi court on charges of insurgent activity. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.

AP officials emphasized the military has not provided the company concrete evidence of its claim against Bilal Hussein, or provided him a chance to offer a defense.

"He's a Sunni Arab from a tribe in that area. I'm sure he does know some nasty people. But is he a participant in the insurgency? I don't think that's been proven," Daniszewski said.

Information provided to the AP by the military to support the continued detention hasn't withstood scrutiny, when it could be checked, Daniszewski said.

For example, he said, the AP had been told that Hussein was involved with the kidnapping of two Arab journalists in Ramadi.

But those journalists, tracked down by the AP, said Hussein had helped them after they were released by their captors without money or a vehicle in a dangerous part of Ramadi. After a journalist aquaintance put them in touch with Hussein, the photographer picked them up, gave them shelter and helped get them out of town, they said.

The journalists said they had never been contacted by multinational forces for their account.

Horton said the military has provided contradictory accounts of whether Hussein himself was a U.S. target last April or if he was caught up in a broader sweep.

The military said bomb-making materials were found in the apartment where Hussein was captured but it never detailed what those materials were. The military said he tested positive for traces of explosives. Horton said that was virtually guaranteed for anyone on the streets of Ramadi at that time.

Hussein has been a frequent target of conservative critics on the Internet, who raised questions about his images months before the military detained him. One blogger and author, Michelle Malkin, wrote about Hussein's detention on the day of his arrest, saying she'd been tipped by a military source.

Carroll said the role of journalists can be misconstrued and make them a target of critics. But that criticism is misplaced, she said.

"How can you know what a conflict is like if you're only with one side of the combatants?" she asked. "Journalism doesn't work if we don't report and photograph all sides."

Iran: U.S.-IRAN REPORT BRANDED DISHONEST

2006-09-17T10:29:00.000-05:00

The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the U.S. government over a report on Iran's nuclear program, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading."

BBC News/UK
September 14, 2006

In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.

The IAEA also took "strong exception" to claims made over the removal of a senior safeguards inspector.

There was no immediate comment from Washington over the letter.

But Rep. Holt, A Democratic member of the House intelligence committee, which released the report, said it had never been meant for release to the public.

"This report was not ready for prime time and it was not prepared in a way that we can rely on. It relied heavily on unclassified testimony," he told the BBCs PM program.

"Deja vu'"

Signed by a senior director at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vilmos Cservent, the letter raises objections over the committee's report released on August 23.

It says the report was wrong to say that Iran had enriched uranium to weapons-grade level when the IAEA had only found small quantities of enrichment at far lower levels.

The letter took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the safeguards inspector Chris Charlier for "allegedly raising concerns about Iranian deception" over its program.

It said Mr. Charlier had been removed at the request of Tehran, which has the right to make such an objection under agreed rules between the agency and all states.

He remains head of a section investigating Iran, the IAEA says.

The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

The letter, sent to Peter Hoekstra, head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, was aimed at setting "the record straight on the facts," the IAEA said.

"This is a matter of the integrity of the IAEA and its inspectors," spokewoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.

A Western diplomat called it "deja vo of the pre-Iraq war period."

The IAEA and the U.S. clashed over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war in Iraq in March 2003.

Iran: FASCIST NETANYAHU MEETS CHENEY FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF WAR PLANNING

2006-09-17T07:07:00.000-05:00

Is history repeating itself after only four months?

This article appears in the September 15, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review
By: Dean Andromidas

Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, chairman of the Israeli Likud party, met in Washington with Vice President Dick Cheney Sept.5, and although neither has revealed what transpired between them, there is little doubt that Iran, and preperation for "another round" against Hezbollah in Lebanon were high on the agenda. This was not the duo's first meeting this year. On June 17, Netanyahu and Cheney, along with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, met semi-secretly at an American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. It was only a few weeks later, that the brutal Israeli offensive against Lebanon began.

Two days after his meeting with Cheney, Netanyahu addressed a luncheon organized by the Hudson Institute in New Yotk City, where he promised that "when Prime Minister"---only then to laugh and wink as he corrected himself to "if Prime Minister"---he would ensure that Israel breaks with the policies of Oslo, and returns to the "Iron Wall" doctrine of the late Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Zionist fascist leader who once pleaded with Adolf Hitler to accept him as an ally. Jabotinsky asserted that Arabs would only accept Israel when they met the "Iron Wall" of Israeli military might. The New York Sun reported in its adulatory coverage on Sept. 8 Netanyahu said that when Israel abandoned that strategy by signing the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians responded with terrorism, just as Jabotinsky had warned.

In a meeting with 15 U.S. Senators during his meeting, Netanyahu lobbied for Cheney's policy of threatening Iran with military force if it does not halt its nuclear program. Speaking at a press conference after the meeting, he told reporters that the military option against Iran should be "layered into" a tough set of sanctions. Bibi claimed to see cracks within the Iranian leadership, and that economic sanctions and the threat of military force might convince Iran to end its nuclear program. He warned that Israel would be the first target of Iran's nuclear weapons---but not the last.

According to the New York Sun, at his New York luncheon Netanyahu assured his audience that President Bush is preparing to ditch the United Nations to take on Iran alone. "Netanyahu told his audience more than "once" that not enough attention has been paid to President Bush's statement in his Tuesday war on terror speech, that "the world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." Not that the "United Nations won't allow," Natenyahu said, but that the "free nations" of the world won't allow. "Netenyahu called it a sign that on the Iranian problem, the president was preparing to stop working through the United Nations and instead work with whoever would join him," the Sun reported.

The avowed fascist also praised globalization as a "God-send" for Israel and "for everyone," while hallucinating over the economic growth which he asserted his reforms as Finance Minister had brought to Israel.

New War on Lebanon

Ever since the implementation of the United Nations-brokered cease-fire agreement in Lebanon went into effect last month, Bibi has been talking about preparing for the "next round" against Hezbollah which could see the war spread to Syria and Iran. In an interview Aug. 15, with a group of U.S. right-wing, pro-Israeli web blogs, organized by Rick Richman of Jewish Current News, just hours after the cease-fire went into effect, Netanyahu clearly stated his strategic intentions.

Bibi called the Lebanon-Israeli war the "first salvo in the Free World's battle against Sunni, or rather Shiite fundamentalism," in which Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons in order to build an "Islamic empire...and that's why President Bush's commitment to prevent Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons is the most important decision of our time."

For Bibi, the recent war was only the "first round. More will come, and we'll have to prepare," he threatened. Calling for a joint U.S.-Israel campaign, he said. "There ought to be a division of labor. Israel should dismantle the Hezbollah military machine and destroy the missile arsenal. That has not yet been achieved, but it will have to be achieved down the line, and equally, the United States should lead its own, or an international effort, to disarm Iran of nuclear weapons." Admitting that the "first round" was a joint Cheney-Israel operation, Bibi said. "This was the agenda before this war began, and it is still the agenda after the war has ended, or after this round of this war has ended."

Make no mistake: The drive for the next war is not coming from Israel, but from the synarchist financial interests who stand behind Cheney and Netanyahu, best represented by their patron, George Pratt Shultz.

Netanyahu also appeared at a seminar at the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia, where he was the guest speaker on terrorism, alongside former CIA Director James Woolsey, who has been one of the top neo-cons pushing the military option against Iran. The event was organized by top U.S. Likudnik and Likud fundraiser Steven L. Friedman, an old schoolmate of Bibi's from his early years in Pennsylvania. Friedman's role is a bagman between the Likud party and the synarchist financial interests that support Netanyahu and the Likud.

Shortly before Netanyahu's arrival in Washington, former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon returned to Israel after spending a year at the pro-Israel think-tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. It is widely believed Ya'alon intends to join the Likud, where he is expected to be named Minister of Defense in a new Netanyahu government. While in Washington, Ya'alon, who sees Iran as posing an existential threat to Israel, made the curcuit of the many neo-conservative think-tanks. Last March, he spoke on "Confronting Iran," at the right-wing Hudson Institute.

Giving his endorsement to the military option, Ya'alon said, "A military option has the potential to significantly damage the Iranian nuclear project...I believe that Western air forces---including the U.S. Air Force, the air forces of the European Union, and the Israeli Air Force---can effectively execute such a mission." He concluded his presentation by quoting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "There is only one thing worse than...a military option, and that is a nuclear Iran."

The Next Israeli Prime Minister?

The disastrous Lebanon war, which left almost 150 Israelis dead, a thrid of whom were civilians, and cost Israel no less than $5B, has left Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fighting for his political life. The shift to the right in the population has made Netanyahu the top beneficiary. Netanyahu has already rejected overtures by associates of Olmert inviting him to join a national unity government. He has reportedly told his associates, "I am going to replace Olmert---not save him."

This is not just bluster. Olmert's government and his Kadima party could become history in less than 2 months. The manifest failures of the war have led to calls for a State Commission of Inquiry. Just such an inquiry during the 1982 Lebanon war forced Ariel Sharon to resign as Defense Minister. Olmert could suffer the same fate if a Commission of Inquiry were formed. Furthermore, State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss has just completed an investigation alleging that Olmert, while Trade and Industry Minister in the last Sharon government, illegally handed out jobs to his political cronies.

Lindenstrauss has already handed over the result of his probe to State Attorney Menachem Mazuz with the recommendation that a criminal investigation be opened against Olmert. Although Mazuz has yet to make a decision of the case, Lindenstrauss is conducting two additional investigations of Olmert alleging fraud, bribe-taking, and corruption.

But the most pressing problem for Olmert will be getting the 2007 budget passed in the Knesset without collapsing his coalition. A guns-no-butter budget, it calls for massive cuts in social programs in order to finance a huge increase in defense spending. Already, his coalition partners, including the Labor Party, the Shas Party, and the Pensioners Party, have announced they will oppose the budget if key social programs are cut.

Netanyahu is banking on 2 likely scenarios. The first, is the fact that Kneset Members themselves would be loath to hold new elections after only four months, elections that would mean the end for many of their political careers. The second, is the crack-up of the recently formed Kadima party, in which a sizeable faction will run "home" to the Likud. Netanyahu believes that at one point, where Likud would become the largest party, he would be given the mandate to form a new government. He could then form a fascist government that would include the Likud, the ethnic Russian Yisrael Beitenau, led by the fascist Avigdor Lieberman, and other right-wing parties. It would be a government that would go to war. It could very well be Israel's last.

Only a Madrid II Could Save Israel

The only policy that could save Israel, and possibly Olmert's own political neck, is a Madrid II peace conference, as proposed by Meretz Party chairman Yossi Beilin, and endorsed by Lyndon LaRouche. Only such a conference could resolve all the conflicts in the region, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq War, and the threat of war against Iran. But, this would have to be preceded by a dramatic shift in Washington, with the ouster of the synarchist cabal in the Bush Administration, led by Vice President Cheney.

Olmert has made clear that he will not deviate one inch from the Bush Administration's dictate. He has rejected calls by his own ministers for opening talks with Syria and the Palestinians. Such calls have already been made by Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter, and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, but have been all rejected.

Moreover, Olmert has continued the military offensive against the Palestinians. While the guns are silent in the north, following the United Nations cease-fire agreement, Israel continues to kill Palestinians. Since Israel launched "Operation Summer Rains" on June 27, over 250 Palestinians have been killed, mostly non-combatants, including women and children. While the world community mobilized to send troops to the expanded United Nations force in southern Lebanon, nothing has been done to stop the killing in the Occupied Territories. This is all the more dangerous, considering that the capture of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah last July, which served as a trigger for the recent war, was, in part, a reaction to the Israeli offensice in Gaza. On Aug. 28, the UN World Food Program warned that Gaza was facing an escalating economic and food crisis, in which no less than 70% of the population is suffering from a severe shortageof food. This situation has been made far worse by the international economic blockade against the Hamas government, which has made it impossible to pay the Palestinian National Authority's 165,000 employees, whose dependents number almost a million people.

Arab diplomatic sources told EIR that the continued offensive against the Palestinians serves only to undermine any attempts to promote a peace process such as a Madrid II. The operations are destabilizing attempts by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to form a unity government between Hamas and his own Fatah movement as a means of breaking the financial blockade against the government. The Israeli military has targetted both Hamas and Fatah operatives. Furthermore, the week of Aug. 28, an Israeli military court indicted 15 Hamas Parliamentarians who were illegally arrested in June.

Linking the continued attacks on the Palestinians to the Lebanon war, Danny Rubinstein, the leading commentator for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, called on Sept. 4 for a state commission to investigate the occupation. "For all its importance, and all the shock in Israel over what happened in the Lebanon war, this war cannot be compared to what has been happening for almost 40 years in the territories occupied by Israel during the Six Day War. Such a commission would probably discover that there is a strong connection between the wars in Lebanon and what occured between us and the Palestinians during those years, and that our control over the West Bank and Gaza contributed quite a bit to the continuing deterioration in the north."

And there are other sane voices which continue to be heard within Israel. Former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, in a commentary appearing in the Ha'aretz Sept. 7, warned that only an international peace conference could forestall the "doomsday" outcome facing the region because of the belligerent policy toward Iran of the Bush Administration and its supporters in Israel, combined with Israel's refusal to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians. Ben-Ami wrote that only "an international peace conference, which would renew the momentum for ending the Israeli-Arab conflict, would remove the basis for Iran's belligerency. Neither sanctions nor even military action can disperse the doomsday cloud hanging over the region. Only divesting Iran of nuclear arms as part of a comprehensive Israeli-Arab settlement could do so."

Janet's Conner

2006-09-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

Janet's Conner

CLINTON VS. TERROR, REPUBLICANS VS. CLINTON

2006-09-16T18:58:00.000-05:00

President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial, yet incredibly long-list of accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no credit or even recognition. President Clinton:

---sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 9/11) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans, because of opposition from the airlines.

---sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by the Republicans in the Senate, because of opposition from banking interests.

---sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:

---Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in N.Y.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

---Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Albania.

---Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

---Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.

---Did not blame Bush I Administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occured 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively---and successfully---to stop future attacks.

---Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

---Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

---Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.

---Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.

---Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts, "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama."

---Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration "had correctly focused on bin Laden."

---Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any other president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

---Backed off Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

---Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

---Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

---Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Dept. of Defense.

---Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Dept.

---Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

---Halted Predator drone tracking Osama bin Laden.

---Did nothing in wake of August 6 CIA report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

---Bush-knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in U.S.---took a 4 week vacation.

---By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millenium plots.

---Blamed President Clinton for 9/11.

Mike Hersh dot com
April 16, 2004

SENATOR BYRD CALLS FOR RUMSFELD'S RESIGNATION

2006-09-16T07:33:00.000-05:00

2139385, Byrd Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation

Posted by babylonsister on Thursday September 14, 2006

Dear Friend:

Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and the failure of our civilian leadership. I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held accountable for costly misjudgements and outright deceptions.

Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth that the Administration fails to see: namely, we had the weapons to win the war, but not the wisdom to secure the peace.

Accountability is necessary, and the President should dismiss Donald Rumsfeld because he has made so many grievous errors in judgement on Iraq.

I would invite you to read the full text of this speech and I appreciate your continued support.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Byrd
United States Senator

And here's the speech

September 13, 2006
Byrd Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation

Mr. President,

September 11 has come and gone, and as we remember those lost on that fateful day, and contemplate events since the horrific attack, one truth stands out.

The war in Iraq has backfired, producing more results for terrorism, and deep divisions within our own country. It is a war we should never have begun. The detour from our attack on Bin Laden and his minions, hiding in the cracks and crevices of the rough terrain of Afghanastan, to the unwise and unprovoked attack on Iraq has been a disastrous one. Mr. Bush's war has damaged the country because he drove our blessed land into an unnecessary conflict, utterly misreading the consequences, with the result now being a daily display of America's vulnerabilities to those who wish us ill. The United States is a weaker power now, especially in the Middle East, but also in the court of world opinion. Where is the America of restraint, of peace and of inspiration to millions? Where is the America respected not only for her military might, but also for her powerful ideas and her reasonable diplomacy?

Our country may have deviated occasionally from its positive global image in the past, but Abu Ghraib, the body snatching for torture, euphemistically called rendition, Presidential directives which unilaterally alter conditions of the Geneva Convention---these are not the stuff of mere slight deviations from the America of peacefulness, fairness, and goodwill. These are major policy and attitudinal changes of Tsunami-sized proportions. Our friends shake their heads in disbelief. Our enemies nod wisely and claim they knew all the while. I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held accountable for costly misjudgements and outright deceptions.

Take our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for example. He misread the Iraqi situation entirely. He adamantly dismisses suggestions for a larger force in Iraq. He failed to object when the White House's Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi army, only to have them go underground nd provide the fodder for the insurgency. He insisted that the Iraqi people would view our soldiers as liberators not occupiers, and even failed to properly anticipate the equipment needs of our men and women in harm's way.

Secretary Rumsfeld continues to insist that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq despite convincing evidence to the contrary, and yet he sits comfortably in his office as the echo of his errors in judgement and strategy continues to cost thousands of lives.

Then there is President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. These men continue to try to make the American public swallow whole the line that the war in Iraq is the front line of a global war on terror, which must be continued at all costs. Stay the course, they say, despite three years of discouragingly little progress in Iraq. The body count is approaching 2,700 for our side, tens of thousands for the beleaguered Iraqi people, and billions of American tax dollars, of which an embarrassingly large chunk has been watsed by irresponsible contractors, and government officials who lack the proper respect for the public purse. Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth that the Administration fails to see: namely, we had the weapons to win the war, but not the wisdom to secure the peace.

Yet, too many in the public are complacent about the numerous violations of their trust and the continuing loss of life in Iraq. Some of our citizens have apparently been convinced that it is unpatriotic to criticize one's country when that country is engaged in an armed conflict. In fact, in our land today, there is a troubling tolerance for government overreaching on fronts at home as well as abroad. This Administrtion has repeatedly used fear and flag-waving to blunt the traditional American insistence on the Bill of Rights, personal freedom of thought and action, privacy, and one's right to speak and write as one pleases. Such a cynical exercise on the part of high officials of our government is unconscionable. It is shameful behavior for which there is no excuse.

The Congress, under the control of the President's party has been submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of White House secrecy and deception. Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for too long---unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to "support the troops." We forget, too often, that there is a very real difference between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The men and women of our military did not ask to go to those far away places, but they were willing. They answered their country's call. We have an obligation to support them, but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep them mired in the middle of a civil war.

The American public is our last best hope now. Our people must demand more from their representatives in the Congress and from their leaders in the White House. Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced by the President because he has made so many grievous errors in judgement on Iraq and because a new voice at the helm of the Dept of Defense could be a breath of fresh air for our policies in Iraq. His replacement would be good for our country. Yet even a sense of a Senate vote of "no confidence" in Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership has been blocked by the President's party in the Senate. Personal accountability has been long absent from this Administration, and this Senator would like to see it return.

One would hope that men and women who rise to positions of awesome responsibility would have the grace, dignity, and honor to know in their own hearts when a well-timed resignation would advance patriotic goals. But, too often, the selfish love of power or some misguided show of toughness wins the days to the detriment of our country's fortunes. Donald Rumsfeld ought to step down or his President ought to ask him to. There is too much at stake for any other course. Personally, I beleive the President is derelict in his duties when he does not ask for Mr. Rumsfeld's latchkey. The bungling and loss of life attendant to this tragic three-year long debacle in Iraq have hurt this country, its public image, and its ability to achieve numerous other national and international goals. This kind of dangerous ineptitude cannot be excused.

Now that oil supply is a favorite target for terrorists who have learned the joys of bombing pipelines, and listening to America bite its nails about the high cost of gasoline, while it laments its lack of foresight in developing alternative fuels.

Now, we have passed yet another anniversary of the bloody attacks which precipitated the disastrous situation in which our country finds itself today. Yet, while we mourn, there are hard truths to confront.

Our attention has been shifted, by design and deception, too quickly from the war in Afghanastan---a war that we needed to fight and win. Now the Taliban is on the rise in that country. Al Qaeda continues to find sanctuary in the mountains. Violence is on the rise, and peace and stability are in jeopardy.

North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption and our newfound bellicosity, has increased its nuclear capability. Iran has been emboldened by our inability to stop the violence in Iraq, and by the lukewarm support we have garnered from traditional allies. Even the people of Turkey, one of the United States' staunchest allies with Turkey a member of NATO, and a model of secular Muslim democracy, have turned against us. A survey conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States indicates that Iran has become one of the most popular countries in Turkey, and that there is a growing willingness to identify with radical Islam. A display of ineptitude and spectacular miscalculation in Iraq has cost us dearly. Disenchantment at home with the dismal results in Iraq will have reverberations for years, much like the failure in Vietnam did in the 1960s.

President Bush insists that his war must go on. He defends warrantless wiretapping of our own citizens as essential to his cause, despite a court decision that the President has no such authority under our Constitution. He defends torture and rendition, and says that they have produced valuable evidence which has subverted several terror attacks on our country. But, his credibility is so damaged that it is difficult to believe him. He demands the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and then try them using military tribunals which deny basic rights, also in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. He seems convinced that he can "win" a global war on terror despite the demonstrated failure of his policies of unilateralism, militarism, overheated rhetoric, and a pathological dislike of diplomacy. It is up to the Congress to change course and to stop the heinous raiding of constitutionally protected liberties by a White House which does not fully appreciate the true meaning of the word freedom. I hope that we may find the courage.

Iraq: HALLIBURTON UNIT RISKED CIVILIAN LIVES, LAWSUITS SAY

2006-09-16T05:38:00.000-05:00

September 15, 2006 (Bloomberg)---Halliburton Co. sent civilian drivers into combat zones to protect its military supply contract, according to lawsuits filed by families of employees killed or injured while driving trucks in Iraq.

By: Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Margaret Cronin Fisk

The families claim Halliburton's KBR Inc. unit, the largest U.S. military contractor in Iraq, sent unarmed civilians into active combat zones in 2004 knowing they would be attacked and possibly killed by Iraqis. The lawsuits were filed in federal court in Houston last year. Families of six civilians who were killed and another dozen who were injured in Iraqi convoy attacks in 2004 are seeking millions of dollars in damages.

"Management decided it would make them look good to be seen acting with the Army that day," said attorney Scott Allen of a deployment in April 2004. "Haliburton and KBR decided they were going to put their contract ahead of those men's lives."

Halliburton, the world's second-largest oilfied-services provider, is trying to put behind it the controversy stirred by KBR's Iraq work. Critics in Congress said KBR overcharged the government for food, transportation, fuel and other services in Iraq and alleged the unit got special treatment because Vice President Dick Cheney was the former chief executive officer of Halliburton. Halliburton plans to shed KBR through an initial public offering or a shareholder spinoff.

The families' claims are scheduled to be aired at a September 18 U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing, where Allen, a lawyer with Houston's Cruse, Scott, Henderson & Allen, and former Halliburton employees will testify. Halliburton and KBR deny any responsibility for the deaths and injuries, contending the U.S. military controlled all decisions governing the convoys. Attorneys for the families said internal company documents show KBR was in charge.

Halliburton Denies Allegations

"Halliburton and KBR deny any allegations of wrongdoing and fully intend to vigorously defend our position," company spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said in an e-mailed statement. "KBR's priority has always been the safety and security of its employees, regardless of where they work around the world."

Halliburton also contends the lawsuits are barred by federal law granting immunity to defense contractors whose employees are killed or injured while working in war zones.

"Defense contractors with employees in the battlefield do not have absolute immunity under any of the legal authorities cited by defendants in this case," said Christopher Yukins, law professor at George Washington University who reviewed the defendant's pleadings.

KBR's Iraq Contract

Halliburton's KBR unit was hired by the U.S. military to provide troop support, including preparing meals, washing clothes, transporting fuel and delivering mail. The U.S. Army said in July that it wouldn't renew the five-year contract and would put future troop service work up for bid later this year.

Shares of Houston-based Halliburton have risen nearly 200% since the start of the Iraq conflict in March 2003. The company's stock split this year. Shares fell 4 cents to $29.02 in New York Stock Exchange trading.

"I don't know if their image can get much more beat up," said Roger Read, an analyst at Natexis Bleichroeder Inc. in Houston. "I wouldn't look for this to have a significant impact on the share price."

The Halliburton spokewoman said 91 KBR employees and subcontractors have been killed while working in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanastan and almost 400 have been wounded. Desert Voice, a publication for coalition troops in the Middle East, said 16 KBR truck drivers died in Iraq between 2003 and 2004.

"Killing Zone"

Lawyers for the drivers claim that on April 8 and April 9, 2004, civilian fuel convoys were sent down highways the military had declared "closed" because of active combat conditions, KBR committed "homicide," lawyers for driver Steven Fisher said in a filing in federal court in Houston last month.

On April 9, 2004, Fisher and another worker, Reginald Lane, were driving KBR fuel trucks in 2 convoys traveling in different directions on Baghdad's "Sword" Highway. Each man's convoy was attacked by Iraq insurgents wielding rocket-fired grenades and machine guns in the same five-mile stretch where troops had fought for 2 days, according to court filings.

Several of the tanks exploded and the road became "a killing zone," according to Allen. KBR continued to send additional convoys down the highway, lawyers for victims claim. Fisher, 43, was killed and Lane, now 57, sustained massive brain damage. Lane's family is seeking $30M in medical costs, according to his attorney, Tommy Fibich of Fibich, Hampton & Leebron in Houston.

"My men weren't simply shot that day, they were slaughtered," Allen said. "For one of my clients, you could fit all we were able to find of him in a matchbox."

Aware of Danger

KBR was aware of the danger, the families argued in court filings. Internal e-mails between "Halliburton/KBR Theatre Transportation Mission Personnel confirm that defendants exercised and retained control over the convoys before, during and after the attacks of April 9, 2004," attorneys for Lane said in court papers filed last month. Most evidence, including the e-mails, has been sealed under a court order Haliburton requested.

"We know that at least 5, but probably 11 were "attacked" in that vicinity on April 8, 2004, Allen said in an interview. "So we know there were civilian death on this raod the day before, at or near the same location where our convoy was attacked on April 9. And we know that every single convoy KBR sent out on April 9 came under enemy attack. Every single one."

Following Orders

KBRs managers were required to follow military orders and send civilian convoys to deliver fuel to troops fighting enemy forces near Baghdad's airport in April and October of 2004, the company said on court filings. KBR could have faced "liability for breach of contract, fines and possible imprisonment" had it stopped the convoys, KBRs attorney James Hall of Jones Day in Houston said last month in a motion to dismiss Lane's lawsuit.

The company's contract, signed in December 2001, specifically forbids placing civilians in combat situations, attorney Fibish said in the drivers' August 4 response to Halliburton's motion to dismiss Lane's case.

The contract also states that "civilian contractor personnel shall not be supervised or directed by military of Dept. of the Army personnel," Fibich said, quoting from the contract.

Attorneys for the families said Halliburton and KBR committed fraud by misrepresenting the danger of the work in Iraq. The men were told their jobs in Iraq would be "100% safe," according to recruiting ads on the Strategic Comm Inc. Internet job site. The truck drivers' lawyers have filed with the court copies of recruiting ads, flyers and memos that Halliburton used to hire civilians for jobs in Iraq.

Not Worth Injury

"There is not one thing that we do that is worth injury to an employee," states a Jan. 22, 2003, memo from John Downey, a KBR unit manager in charge of the company's military support contract. "Each of you has my personal authority to stop any activity which you believe to be unsafe," Downey wrote in the memo, which was distributed to job recruits in 2004, according to court filings.

Halliburton didn't deceive anyone, Norcross said. "Not one of our employees leaves the United States for Iraq without thorough and repeated briefings on the dangers in Iraq," she said.

The lead lawsuit is Fisher v. Halliburton, No. H-05-1731, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).

***These are some of the things that you don't hear about Iraq!

Illinois Politics: MURDER VICTIMS' RELATIVES RIP TOPINKA (R) FOR GUN JOKE

2006-09-15T15:26:00.000-05:00

Choking back sobs of grief and anger, an Englewood woman who saw her 10-year-old niece killed by stray gunfire said Wednesday that Republican Judy Baar Topinka is unfit to be governor because she joked about using a rolling pin as an assault weapon against Gov. Blagojevich.

Sun Times
By: Scott Formek
September 14, 2006

"I'm the sword of justice"

"I don't think that's government material, at all," said Deanna Woods, who tried to use her body to shield children at the March 11 birthday party where her niece, Sietha White was killed.

"To someone who has been in this predicament, they are not going to take that as a joke."

Woods spoke with other relatives of gun victims at an emotional news conference held by Gov. Blagojecich's re-election campaign.

"It's just over the top"

They are responding to remarks Topinka made at a fund-raiser last week. She was joking about Blagojevich campaign commercials that feature Topinka explaining her opposition to an assault weapons ban saying the definition is so vague that a rolling pin could be considered an assault weapon.

"I'm the sword of justice and I'm going to cut him [Blagojevich] to pieces," Topinka told GOP donors, according to the Champaign News-Gazette. "We will take him out with my little rolling pin known as the assault weapon. I will prove to him, indeed, it is an assault weapon."

***This lady is off of her rocker. She must be hitting that sauce again!

Stephen Young, a gun-control activist whose 19-year0old son Andrew was killed by gang members in 1996, said: "This statement itself should lead people to question her character and her judgement."

***She sounds so uneducated when she makes comments like this! She doesn't sound capable of the job that she is looking to take on. I guess the Repubs think that they did it with Bush, so they think that they can do it with her!

Jennifer Bishop, field director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called on Topinka to apologize.

"I know it's a joke," said Bishop, whose sister, Nancy Bishop Langert, brother-in-law, Richard Langert, and the couple's unborn child were killed by a teenager with a handgun in 1990.

"It is a diversion:" Topinka

"It's just over the top. It's inappropriate. It's unprofessional," she said.

Topinka refused to apologize, standing by her position on assault weapons, saying her remarks were taken out of contect and accusing Blagojevich of trying to drw attention away from his own ethical problems.

Ethical problems! If anybody has ethical problems, it's Topinka! Just look at her sly remarks and inability to apologize. There is more going on behind the scenes with her problems than even she knows about!

She spoke at her own news conference Wednesday, calling on the governor to explain a Chicago Tribune report that Blagojevich's former campaign treasurer gave the governor's 7-year-old daughter Amy a $1,500 check as a birthday gift around the same time the man's wife got a $45,000-a-year state job.

***SO? Somebody did me a favor once and a lot of times the person won't take anything, so I made it up everytime one of their kids' birthdays came around!

"It's a diversion," Topinka said of the gun victim's remarks. "And you're going to see more diversions or as many diversions as it takes to try and bring me into this argument so as to get you off his tail on the $1,500."

***It's a dead story! She's going to need a few diversions of her own!

Topinka said Blagojevich needs to personally answer questions about whether the gift was a payoff for the job---allegations the governor's spokewomen has denied.

"At a minimum, I think the public ought to add that into their equation of how they want to vote in November," Topinka said. "Because this is a real mark on character and integrity if they allegations are true."

***I wouldn't vote for this person if somebody paid me. She acts illiterate! She could have at least said she was sorry if someone took her words out of contect. But it appears that she is too good to apologize. She's too arrogant, and why I don't know! Her day is coming!

War on Terror: LIMITS TO SURVEILLANCE BILL BLOCKED

2006-09-15T13:36:00.000-05:00

Washington (AP)---Senate Republicans blocked Democratic attempts to rein in President Bush's domestic wiretapping program Wednesday amid a sustained White House cmpaign to give the administration broad authority to monitor, interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects.

***The Republicans have been pretending like they are trying to distance themselves from Bush. But when it comes down to it, they go back into session and vote for what Bush wants. They are his lapdogs and need to be replaced. We need stronger representatives than those who go and "rubber-stamp" for this president! BUSH IS NOT A PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE! I don't care how many speeches he makes. Those who listen to him only for the meer fact that he is a president, are just as bad as he is. He has done nothing for the people except try to scare you while he goes behind your back and takes away your rights. You "may think" that it's not affecting you, but just wait. You have no idea what is going on out there.

Las Vegas Sun
By: Laurie Kellman
September 13, 2006

While refusing to give the president a blank check to prosecute the war on terrorism, Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee kept to the White House's condition that a bill giving legal status to the surveillance program passed unamended.

It's called "rubber-stamping!"

By voice vote and roll calls, Republicans defeated Democratic amendments to insert a one-year expiration date into the bill and require the National Security Agency to report more often to Congress on the standards for its domestic surveillance program.

***When you are the majority in both Houses, like the Republicans are, they are going to do what the Republican White House wants! The Democrats are out numbered. It is as simple as that. It's not like they haven't been trying to work for the people, because they are the only party that has been. But the White House isn't for "The People." The White House is for "itself!" And this White House is not for "The People!"

We just don't want to see the Americans' rights abused for the next 50 or 60 years because of an oversight on our part," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who joined some Republicans in opposing some amendments offered by her Democratic colleagues.

But the Republicans countered that the bill represented the best deal on the matter and should not be amended---conforming with the White House's condition that Bush would sign it into law if passed unchanged.

***Once again, "rubber stamping" for the White House. The Republicans don't even try to listen to reason or they are threatened by the Bush administration. Is that the kind of people you want representing you? The weak?

The deal is part of the White House's election-season campaign to preserve its ability to fight the war on terror despite congressional concerns about civil liberties.

***Our forefathers seen this years ago and said that it was up to the people to make the right choices. If the people didn't make that right choice, we would end up in a dictatorship like we were before the Revolutionary War. The framers of our constitution made laws to make sure that any president is not above the law. But with these Republicans, we will soon become a dictatorship. The American people don't know what that is and let's face it, we are too arrogant to comprehend what it means!

A parade of White House officials seeking support for legal tools against terrorists was to culminate Thursday with an appearance by Bush himself before House Republicans anxious to maintain their majority in the November elections.

***When Bush says "terrorists," he's not talking about foreigners. He is mostly talking about American-born citizens. That's something a lot of people haven't put into perspective yet. He uses words like Guantanamo detainees, al-Qaeda, etc., to make it appear as if that is what he is talking about. It's not! He's talking about us! Ask yourself this: Why does Bush want to get into "everybody's" phones? Or, wht does Bush need to get into "everybody's" computer's? These are the beginnings of a dictatorship!

Under firm pressure from the administration, Republicans were expected to advance seperate versions of bills to give legal status to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, but also impose some restrictions not embraced by the White House.

Behind-the-scenes negotiations were intense Wednesday. As the Senate bill moved toward committee approval, the House Judiciary Committee abruptly canceled its markup that had been scheduled to happen simultaneously. This reason for the cancellation wasn't immediatly clear.

Spector, sponsor of one administration-backed bill, acknowledged that GOP lawmakers fighting for re-election may not embrace a measure bearing Bush's stamp of approval.

***Spector, of all people! He's the one that is always calling for hearings on Bush because he claims that he is unconstitutionaly breaking laws. Now look at what he's doing! Sponsoring the administration's-backed bill. What a phony! He only calls for hearings so that the Republicans can explain their side of things and nothing gets done. Spector is a liar and needs to leave Congress!

"It is popular to have bills that are not White House bills," Specter (R-PA), told reporters recently.

He was speaking of Republican support for the House version, which is opposed by the White House because it imposes more restrictions on the program than Specter's.

***Don't believe that! Hastert (R-IL) is one of the White House's lapdogs. This is what the House Republicans want you to think. Hastert doesn't want you to think that they are doing anything for the White House. Don't forget, the House are the ones that are worried about their seats this election-season!

Sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), and endorsed by House GOP leaders, that measure would require the president to wait until an attack has occured to initiate wiretapping without warrants,a provision administration officials say would hamper the White House's ability to prevent attacks.

***Sounds terrific, if it were only true. Like I said, the House Republicans are going to do anything to win back their seats. Even make up phony bills, because they know that it will never happen. The White House usually gets what it wants!

Instead, the Bush administration has given Specter's version a highly conditional endorsement, as long as it is passed unchanged---not a sure thing given the amendments and substitutes that await it on the floor.

Specter's bill would submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for a one-time constitutional review and extend from the current three days to seven days the time allowed for emergency surveillance before a warrant application is submitted and approved by that court.

The proposals were 2 of several bills to alter or change portions of Bush's war on terror that inspired him this week to send several emissaries to Capitol Hill.

Vice President Dick Cheney and other top aides encountered stiff resistance from senators and House leaders. The standoffs raised questions about whether the president could unite Republicans on his anti-terror agenda before November's midterm elections.

Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten appealed to Senate Republicans during their weekly policy lunch Tuesday to pass legislation that would let the president begin prosecuting terror suspects. The legislation also would limit the circumstances under which a government interrogator could be prosecuted for mistreating a detainee.

CIA Director Michael Hayden also met with lawmakers this week on detainee treatment.

Veterans Issues: SUPPORT VETERANS' MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS

2006-09-14T13:43:00.000-05:00

Twenty-one percent of Fort Lewis soldiers recently returned from Iraq were deemed "at risk" for post-traumatic stress disorder. Between 15% and 17% of all combat troops returning from Afghanastan or Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety or PTSD.

These brave men and women fight for our freedoms and we should support their mental health needs. Unfortunately, our national veterans outreach relies on unclear criteria for mental health referrals and on veterans seeking treatment on their own. Enhanced mental health screenings and outreach would help veterans get needed support.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2004 that the stigma surrounding mental health care is the greatest barrier to veterans receiving proper treatment. Many soldiers fear mental health diagnoses could ruin their career. We can ease that stigma be requiring screenings with a mental health professional for all combat veterans rather than singling out troops from their peers.

Required screenings with mental health professionals would close gaps in the Defense Department's mental health outreach. Currently, returning service members complete surveys to identify those at risk for PTSD. The Government Accountability Office reports the department has no set criteria for returning at-risk veterans for additional care, refers little more than 20% of those veterans and does not track whether they receive care.

To address these shortfalls, I am working to ensure the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act requires more rigorous mental health screenings for returning service members.

During a recent Fort Lewis visit, I learned Washington state is a national leader in mental health outreach for returning troops, including reservists and National Guard members.

Fort Lewis' Soldier Awareness Assessment Pilot Program requires troops to be assessed by a mental health specialist between 90 and 180 days after demobilization. At-risk veterans often begin to display signs of mental illness during this 90-day period. As many as 30% of SWAPP participants report potential problems for the first time.

Our state also exceeds national standards for mental health care for reservists and National Guard members. The state works with the VA, the Labor Dept. and state veterans service organizations to sponsor Family Days where veterans get mental health information. 41% of participants were referred to mental health professionals during 2005 and the first 4 months of 2006.

Puget Sound's VA network also provides additional mental health attention for veterans. The network's post-deployment clinic includes a 1-hour appointment with a mental health professional. Those sessions can steer patients into other VA mental health programs.

Congress should expand Washington's military mental health programs to other parts of the country. To that end, I cosponsored HR 1588, the Comprehensive Assistance for Veterans Exposed to Traumatic Stressors Act of 2005. This broad legislation would, among other things, direct the VA to develop a demonstration project stationing VA psychologists and psychiatrists at major demobilization sites and military treatment facilities.

When the U.S. goes to war, we must be prepared to accept the full cost of that war. Our men and women often come home with physical and mental wounds that take years to heal. Regardless of our feelings about the current conflict, we can agree that the U.S. should take care of their own, and that we should help the brave men and women return to healthy lives after their service.

Veterans and their families deserve nothing less.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
By: Adam Smith-Guest Columnist
September 14, 2006

*Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat, represents the 9th Congressional District in Wahington state.

U.S. INSTITUTIONS, PRESS ASK: IS PRESIDENT BUSH NUTS?

2006-09-14T10:08:00.000-05:00

An Establishment consensus is rapidly emerging over the ever-more obvious lunacy of President George W. Bush, and the strategic implications of allowing a man with long-term and severe psychiatric disorders to remain in the Presidency during a period of systematic financial disintegration, which is driving some leading synarchist bankers to push for World War III---using mad George as their patsy. Indicative of the emerging Anglo-American consensus that Bush is too far gone to serve much longer, is British Prime Minister Tony Blair's own "Damascus Road" break with G.W., since his last visit to Washington in the late spring.

This article appears in the September 1, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review
By: Jeffrey Steinberg

While vacationing in the Carribean in early August, Blair, according to British sources, allowed Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to tell a group of Labour MPs that Bush's handling of the Middle East crisis was "crap." Prescott's comment was quickly leaked to all of the leading British dailies, triggering a public debate, and reports that Blair had encouraged his deputy to signal London's break with George Bush's and Dick Cheney's Washington.

In a series of high-visibility television news broadcasts and opinion pieces appearing in the U.S. over the past 2 weeks, a clear message has been conveyed. The President is mentally incompetent to serve out the remaining months of his term in office, and the sociopathic Vice President Cheney is going to have to go, as part of a clean sweep of the White House.

Precisely how this clean-out is going to occur is by no means settled. But the verdict has been delivered, loud and clear, and a lively public debate has been stoked, through the medium of some popular news/entertainment programs, including MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," Comedy Central's "The Daily Show"---and even the formerly slavishly pro-Washington Post.

The most dramatic sign of the Establishment's conclusion that Bush is too lunatic to continue in office came on Aug. 15, when former Republican Congressman-turned-right-wing-TV news analyst Joe Scarborough aired a ten-minute segment of his "Scarborough Country," posing the question: "Is Bush an idiot?" Throughout the segment, the words "Is Bush an idiot?" ran across the bottom of the screen. The segment provoked a firestorm of media commentaries, including 2 subsequent "Scarborough Country" segments, an equal number of satirical assaults on President Bush's mental midgetry by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, an a detailed news account in the August 20 Sunday Washington Post of the conservative revolt against the idiot-in-Chief. Equally distressing for the White House is a series of op-ed pieces by previously loyal conservative pundits, including George Will and National Review editor Rich Lowry, all declaring that Bush's Iraq misadventure has been a dismal failure.

A senior U.S. Intelligence figure described the situation in Washington as "chaos---the worst chaos I have ever seen." He confirmed earlier reports that former George H.W. Bush is apoplectic over his son's descent into messianic madness, and that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is so isolated from the White House, that she is not even consulting with the President as she attempts to find a replacement Deputy Secretary of State, to fill the vacany left by Robert Zoellick's sudden departure in June. When Rice attempted to appoint top aide Nick Burns as Zoellick's replacement, she was blocked by Vice President Cheney, and George W. Bush did not weigh in to support her.

It is no secret that Cheney, the leading synarchist bankers' asset in the Administration, is pressing for a resumption of Israel's military actions against Lebanon, and an expansion of the Israeli aggression into Syria---this, despite the fact that Israel's mid-July invasion of Lebanon failed to destroy or even militarily weaken Hezbollah. The renewed Israeli military operations would be, for Cheney, a prelude to a full-scale U.S. bombing campaign against Iran, perhaps before the November U.S. mid-term elections. Sources have confirmed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have unanimously informed the President that, under no circumstances would they support military action against Iran. "There is no military option against Iran," the Chiefs informed the President, according to several well-placed military and intelligence sources, who spoke to EIR on condition of anonymity. Yet, a number of senior policy analysts freely admitted that they could not say with any degree of certainty that the unanimous view of the JCS will carry any weight at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Between Cheney's commitment to regime change in Tehran before January 2009, and Bush's psychotic refusal to entertain any "bad news" assessments, the U.S. could race, flight-forward, into a pre-emptive war against Iran, in much the same way that Israel raced blindly into its greatest military fiasco ever, in Lebanon. Sane voices in the Israeli military had warned, repeatedly, that a military strike against Hezbollah's asymmetric war-fighting capability would end in dismal failure. Those voices were ignored---largey due to pressure on the Olmert government from the Cheney circles in Washington.

World War III

It is this prospect, of a mad-hatter President and his Vice Presidential accomplice bringing the United States to the brink of self-destruction, that has triggered the institutional revolt. The Scarborough, Stewart, and related assaults on the President's lunacy are merely manifestations of a much deeper, behind-the-scenes process of debate, among senior Establishment figures, over how to deal with a dysfunctional White House, during a period of the greatest combined political and financial crisis in the nation's history. While sense perception might suggest that the television assaults on the President's mental state have triggered the institutional debate, the exact opposite is true. The American public, already sickened by the Administration's bungling, treachery, tyranny, and worse, is being brought into the top-down deliberations. The simple fact is: Nothing short of a top-to-bottom house cleaning in the Executive branch, starting with Cheney and Bush, is going to save the nation and the world from coming from a New Dark Age of global asymmetric warfare, financial disintegration, and the collapse of the sovereign nation-state system itself.

If Bush and Cheney do launch a war against Iran, the outcome will be even more disastrous for the United States than the recent Israeli misadventure in Lebanon was for the Jewish state. If George W. Bush were looking for a short cut in infamy, he could not choose a faster route than a bombing campaign against Iran. Perhaps the President will find a few strands of sanity, tied to his deep fear of failure, and will pull back from the brink. For the U.S. institutions to risk the fate of the nation on such a slender reed would be madness in its own right.

War on Terror: CRITICISM GIVES U.S. JITTERS OVER A FUTURE TORY GOVERNMENT

2006-09-14T08:22:00.000-05:00

The White House declined yesterday to issue a direct response to David Cameron's attacks on Britain's "slavish" bond with the United States, even as ripples of concern about what it meant for relations with the possible next government of Britain spread across the American capital.

TIMES Online
By: Tom Baldwin in Washington
September 13, 2006

Tony Snow, President Bush's press secretary, used instead words that the Administration adopts regularly when addressing political opponents and peace protesters: "Freedom of speech is a glorious thing," he said.

A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed yesterday that Mr. Cameron had no plans to visit the U.S. in the near future, suggesting only that such an event "might take place before the next general election."

This statement seems to contradict remarks made by William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, when he led a delegation to Washington in February. He claimed that they were "paving the way" for a meeting between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Bush, saying: "That, I'm sure, will take place later in the year."

Mr. Cameron's office said yesterday that his speech in London on Monday was intended as a "careful and thoughtful analysis" and should not be seen as "indicating anything other than we're 100% behind the special relationship."

The Tory leader is understood to have emphasized this during a "courtesy call" to Robert Tuttle, the U.S. Ambassador to London, on Monday. A U.S. diplomat was quoted as saying that he disagrred with sections of Mr. Cameron's speech, but "I take him at his word that he did not intend to be anything other than pro-American."

Indeed most of Mr. Cameron's most pointed remarks appear to have been aimed at President Bush and not at America in general. These included his attack on those who "see only light and darkness in the world" or regard the terror threat as coming from a "single global jihad," as well as his remark that "I am a liberal conservative rather than a neoconservative."

In Washington yesterday there was an undercurrent of anger at Mr. Cameron's timing. John O'Sullivan, from the Hudson Institute, said: "Even if these things neded to be said, perhaps the fifth anniversary of 9/11 was not the best day to say them."

Nile Gardiner, who runs thae Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the right-wing Heritage foundation, said: "I think this speech will have raised sone eyebrows in Washington because, although pro-American in parts, it's clearly designed to put some distance between Cameron and Bush."

He suggested that Mr. Cameron's speech would matter to the White House, not least because the President was beginning to think about his legacy where British political as much as military support will be crucial if his successors were to not abandon Iraq.

National Security: PELOSI (D-CA) SAYS "DEMOCRATS STAND UNITED FOR A NEW DIRECTION FOR REAL SECURITY"

2006-09-14T07:59:00.000-05:00

PELOSI: "Democrats Stand Ready to Project America's Power to Protect the American People."

September 13, 2006

Below are Pelosi's remarks:

"Today, Democrats stand united for a New Direction for Real Security. We are advancing tough and smart national security policy to keep the American people safe. Democrats stand ready to project America's power to protect the American people wherever our interests are threatened at home and abroad. We talk about a military that is second to none; diplomacy based on that military strength to forge the alliances necessary to fight terrorism and to defeat it; to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; stop global warming, and other threats to the safety and security of the American people.

"We believe that Real Security begins at home; a stronger America begins at home. We said at the earliest stage of the new Congress, hopefully before the new Congress, working together in a bipartisan way, we can pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

"The 9/11 Commission has given the Bush Administration in this Congress D's and F's and incompletes on passing and implementing their recommendations. The American people deserve better. The American people deserve a new course of action.

"A strong America must be based on bipartisanship; it must be based on working together. Politics must stop at the water's edge to protect the American people. It must also be based on civility and not ever imply that there is any lack of patriotism or, resolve to defeat terrorism. It has to have bipartisanship, civility, and truth and trust.

"It is time for truth, the ground truth, about what is actually happening in Iraq, the ground truth about what we are doing about terrorism, and the trust that the American people must have in our country. We have a reputation that we must enjoy in the world in order to keep the American people safe.

DEMOCRATS STAND READY TO PROJECT AMERICA'S POWER TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

2006-09-14T07:56:00.000-05:00

Today, September 13, 2006, House Domocratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and other House and Senate Democratic leaders joined former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski at a news conference today to call for a New Direction for Real Security.

Please see General Clark's comments below regarding Armed Forces and our Veterans.

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO

"Democrats understand that the world is a dangerous place. Our nation is at war and we are here to speak up for a strong national security policy---one that keeps America safe at home; one that advances America's interests abroad; and one that takes care of the men and women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line for America. Our service members and their families have been given a very tough job to do in these times. They are doing their very best and we are proud of them and we admire them.

"But whether you agree or disagree with the President's decision to invade Iraq three and a half years ago, the facts are now indisputable. Some of these have already been sited by Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi, but here is another fact: There is no end in sight for this war under this Administration's policy. It is not only a distraction to the war on terror, it is feeding the war on terror, serving as a training ground for al Qaeda and a recruiting tool for would be terrorists.

"Here is another fact: the Army and the Marine Corps, the services that are bearing the brunt of the burden of fighting in Iraq, are being chewed up by the conflict. Not because they are not doing a great job and giving 100%, not because we don't have great leaders in the Armed Forces, but because they have been under-resourced by the Administration.

"In the latest readiness reporting, two-thirds of the Army's operating forces, active and reserve, are now unready to go to combat. And in the same reporting period, not one of the non-deployed, U.S.-based combat teams was ready to deploy. Both the Army and Marine Corps have suffered a serious loss of material---they are grinding up equipment at accelerated rates---and the money to repair and replace this equipment has simply not been provided. Our Armed Services have had to lower recruiting standards to keep with the need for manpower. Third and fourth combat tours are increasing the stress on families, and the medical and VA funding that has been provided is simply inadequate to meet the magnitude of the needs our our service members and their families when they return.

"So we are here today to call on the Republican-led Congress and the Administration to work with us, to face up to the needs of the Armed Forces, to establish the kind of multiyear reset accounts that are needed to rebuild the Army and the Marine Corps, and to provide the funding for the VA and the DOD that is required to take care of the lifetime medical and non-medical needs to our veterans when they come back from the war. We need to fully fund the request in Congress in 2007, and we need to go beyond that to look at the real requirements to strengthen our Armed Forces for the challenges they may face in the future."

A LETTER TO VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

2006-09-13T09:57:00.000-05:00

---Says "There was no provable link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."---

WASHINGTON, D.C.---Today, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, sent the following letter to Vice President Dick Cheney:

September 12, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Vice President:

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," you stated "we don't know" whether September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta ever met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

Just last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that cites multiple declassified intelligence assessments, some from as early as mid-2002, reporting evidence that the meeting did not occur. In addition, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "the available evidence does not support the original "Czech report" of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi officer.

There are also classified assessments on this topic from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, dated 20 March 2006 and 27 April 2006, respectively.

The evidence is now public and the facts undisputed that the Prague meeting never happened. There was no available link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.

I urge you to correct your statement on "Meet the Press" and to be accurate in any future remarks.

Politics: THE REPUBLICAN RECORD ON BORDER SECURITY

2006-09-13T09:51:00.000-05:00

This afternoon, September 12, 2006, the House Republican Leadership is holding a forum on the "results" of their sham "hearings" on immigration and border security, which they held throughout August.

The headlines that these sham "hearings" generated say it all:

"All Talk, No Action on Immigration" (Boston Herald, 8/17/06)

"Immigration Hearings Are Just Sales Job" (Tucson Citizen, 8/10/06)

"Immigration Hearing Misfires" (Denver Post, 8/31/06)

"Field Hearings A Waste of Time, Money" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 8/17/06)

"Immigration Hearings Staged to Run Out the Clock" (Springfield Massachusetts Republican, 7/31/06)

Republicans have stalled by holding these "hearings," that are all talk and no action---conducting hearings instead of going to conference on the immigration/border security bills that the House and Senate have passed. Hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers' dollars were wasted on these sham hearings.

The record on border security over the last 5 years is poor. As the report shows, Republicans have been consistently voting against efforts to better enhance border security resources---including Border Patrol agents, detention beds, and immigration enforcement agents. Once again, the Republican rhetoric and the Republican record simply don't match up.

VA Issues: INSURANCE CHANGE COULD COST MILITARY RETIREES

2006-09-13T09:09:00.000-05:00

Would ban civilian employers from paying incentives to workers who use TRICARE.

Insurance change could cost retirees

Gannett News Service
By: Dennis Camire
via: VA Watchdog dot Org
September 12, 2006

WASHINGTON---Some working military retirees would lose thousands of dollars a year under a proposed cost-cutting move for a federal health-insurance program.

This year's House and enate defense bills would ban civilian employers---including local and state governments---from paying incentives to military retirees who use the Defense Department's Rricare insurance instead of their companies' healthcare plans.

Dave Winnett, who retired in 1995 after 20 years in the Marine Corps, said the move could cost him as much as $3,000 a year in healthcare payments he now receives from his employer, the city of Torrance, Calif.

"It just seems that as soon as I retired, all I hear about is Washington trying to figure out ways to reduce our benefits," said Winnett, 52, a disabled veteran of the first Gulf War who manages city-owned cars and trucks.

It just seems like we're always struggling to keep what we got."

But the Pentagon says the private-sector incentive payments contributed to an increase in Tricare costs to $36.7B this year from $18B five years ago.

"Those payments may exceed $1,000 a year in some cases." David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said this year. As Chu sees it, the Defense Dept is subsidizing healthcare for private-sector employees.

But Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America, said the proposed change would penalize thousands of retirees whose employers aren't trying to shift healthcare costs to the Pentagon.

Some companies reward any employee who chooses another healthcare plan, such as a spouse's, Strobridge said.

Other companies use a cafeteria plan in which the employer pays a set amount and the employee chooses where to spend it, he said.

Winnett, for example, said Torrance offers all employees the choice between its own plan and a monthly payment toward costs of another plan. He said he uses the city's dental and vision insurance, and Tricare for medical needs.

"This is not something where the city is saying, 'Let's go after those Tricare retirees and force them to use that benefit,'" Winnett said.

Even if Congress approves the change, he is not going to give up Tricare.

"All it's going to result in is me losing money out of my pocket," he said.

Veterans Issues: GAO REPORT FINDS VA SHORT OF RESOURCES TO ADDRESS HOMELESS VETERANS' NEEDS

2006-09-13T08:45:00.000-05:00

Rep. Michaud Urges Administration to Provide Necessary Funding and Make Commitment to End Homelessness Among Veterans

News Release
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs-Democratic Office
Lane Evans
Ranking Democratic Member
September 12, 2006

Washington, D.C.---"With veterans living on the streets at night, it is unacceptable to have a shortfall of nearly 10,000 beds for homeless veterans," said Rep. Michael H. Michaud, Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health in reaction to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued late Tuesday.

"The GAO report clearly indicates that gaps on service exist and that we are leaving behind veterans who are sleeping on the streets, under bridges, in alleys and in cars. Homelessness is curable. We must---and can---take steps to prevent and end homelessness among veterans," said Michaud.

One third of the nation's adult homeless population are veterans, half suffer from mental health disorders and many have substance abuse problems. The Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diam program (GPD), which provides transitional housing to veterans.

The GAO report specifically found that while VA has attempted to improve its services and increase the capacity of the GPD program, an additional 9,600 transitional beds are needed to meet the current demand of homeless veterans in need of shelter. GAO states that VA plans to increase GPD beds by 2,200. The GAO report also indicated that resource and communications gaps have stood in the way of VA and provider efforts to help homeless veterans live independently. Misunderstandings in program policies have prevented homeless veterans from getting needed services.

The GAO also reported that VA served over 2,500 of the homeless veterans who had served in military operations in the Persian Gulf, Afghanastan, and Iraq.

Michaud has introduced H.R. 5960, the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act of 2006, legislation to fortify the nation's efforts to prevent and end homelessness among veterans. Michaud's legislation includes a pilot to prevent homelessness among returning troops.

Military Issues: REP. MILLER (D-CA) URGES GOP LEADERS TO DROP OPPOSITION TO SUPPORTING MILITARY FAMILIES

2006-09-13T08:35:00.000-05:00

Provisions Would Give Military Families More Flexibility at Work

September 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C.---Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, issued the following statement today after the 'Army Times' reported that Republican leaders on the committee planned to oppose a provision in a pending defense bill that would require the federal government to give its employees more flexibility to use earned leave time to care for their families while a loved one is called to active duty for the U.S. Armed Forces and would encourage private employers to do the same:

"We have nearly 160,000 troops risking their lives for us in Iraq and Afghanastan. We owe it to them to do everything in our power to ensure that their families are taken care of while they are serving our country. In that spirit, Democrats in the Senate secured a provision in the Senate's 2007 defense bill that would require federal agencies to allow their employees to use their sick and leave time for children or other dependents when a family member in the Armed Forces is deployed. It would encourage, but not require, employers in the private sector to do the same for their employees.

***Now that's supporting our troops!

"This is the least Congress should do. It would cost the federal government very little, but it would make a big difference in the lives of families who are struggling to balance the demands of work and home life while a parent or other loved one is deployed. It would also establish the federal government as a model for all employees when it comes to granting flexibility to military families. In fact, the Senate Democrats had originally proposed to require the Dept of Labor to establish a private sctor leave program, but Senate Republican leaders refused to accept it.

***I thought the Republicans said that they "Support Our Troops?" How is rejecting this Democratic idea, supporting them? It appears that the Republicans would rather do for the corporations that support them than "Support Out Troops."

"Supporting our troops means more than just putting a sticker on your bumper. Republican leaders continue to claim they support the troops while they SLASH FUNDING for veterans' health care, send young men and women into harm's way without adequate armor and equipment, and FAIL to support military families. This LATEST REFUSAL to support military families is totally contemptible. With our military stretched so thin, efforts to support military families like this one shouldn't even be under debate. Republican leaders should DROP THEI OPPOSITION to this provision and do the right thing for military families."

Last week, Miller sent a letter to McKeon urging him to support the Senate provisions. The current Senate provision was secured by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and James Jeffords (I-VT) and it passed the Senate by voice vote (that is, without opposition). It has the support of the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), the National Military Family Association (NMFA), the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

***Right now the Senate Republicans will go along with it because it's election season. But since Frist (R-TN) is a lapdog for the White House, let's see what happens when it comes time for the "real" vote!

Politics: PELOSI: "IT'S TIME FOR REAL LEADERSHIP AGAINST TERRORISM........"

2006-09-13T07:45:00.000-05:00

Pelosi: "It's Time for Real Leadership Against Terrorism, Not Just Republicans' Half-Truths and Scare Tactics."

September 12, 2006

Washington, D.C.---House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on Majority Leader John Boehner's inflammatory comments about Democrats and the war on terror:

"If anyone attacks America they will be dealt with swiftly and surely.

"Rather than try to defeat their own failed record, Republicans have resorted to the desperation politics of fear. It is long past time for the Republicans to be honst with American people and stop questioning the patriotism of those who recognize that the President's Iraq policy has not worked, is making us less safe, and must be changed.

"If Mr. Boehner has a concern with the Hamdan decision, he should take it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices found that Mr. Bush was opereating outside of the rule of law. Attempting to criticize the decision by criticizing those whose views were validated by the Court reveals a lack of substantive argument and shows a profound lack of understanding about the way our democracy works.

"It's time for real leadership against terrorism, not just Republicans' half-truths and scare tactics. The American people will see through the Republicans cynical tactics and choose a new direction in the war against terror."

Politics: PELOSI AND REID---URGE NETWORKS TO DEVOTE FAIR COVERAGE TO HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS

2006-09-13T07:36:00.000-05:00

Washington, D.C.---House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter today to the presidents of network news companies calling on them to devote more coverage to House and Senate Democrats if they continue to give extensive coverage to President Bush's national security speeches.

Below is the letter:

September 12, 2006

Steve Capus
President
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Dear Mr. Capus:

No subject is more critical to the American people than our national security. Yet as the press has widely reported, the issue of national security has regularly been politicized and exploited for partisan gain by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress. The President's recent speaking schedule and his nationally televised prime time speech last night strongly suggest that similar tactics will be employed in the coming weeks leading up to Election Day to heighten public anxiety and promote partisanship.

Over the weekend, 'The New York Times' reported that Republicans intend to use a series of national security speeches in what 'The Times' has characterized as a "carefully calibrated strategy" to win the midterm elections. The issue of national security should not be politicized. The security of our nation surely deserves a public discussion, and different viewpoints deserve similar coverage so that the American people hear alternative ideas. We write to you today to request that if you plan to continue to devote extensive live coverage to the President's national security speeches over the next few weeks, you similarly provide substantial coverage to the national security events and statements of House and Senate Democrats.

Until now, there has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues. Over the last month as campaign efforts have begun in earnest, according to Media Matters, there have been over 64% more conservatives appearing on the Sunday news shows than Democrats. In a speech that was supposed to commemorate the fifth anniversry of the September 11 tragedy, last night President Bush was given almost 20 minutes of primetime coverage on all major networks for a speech that continued to inaccurately link 9/11 to the war in Iraq.

Congressional Democrats have a wealth of experience, authority, and the ideas as to how we could better secure our nation, combat terrorism, and ensure a significant transition in Iraq. House and Senate leaders hold frequent press conferences and briefings on a wide variety of national security issues ranging from Iraq to border security to the state of our military readiness. Most of those receive scant coverage, even when offering specific alternatives to Administration policies.

In order to provide the American people with complete information to make the best choices come Election Day, we ask that you commit your network to providing fair and equitable coverage to the viewpoints of both Republican and Democrats on these crucial national security debates.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
House Democratic Leader

HARRY REID
Senate Democratic Leader

cc: David Westin, ABC News, Sean McManus, CBS News, Jim Walton, CNN, Roger Ailes, FOX News Channel

AIR FORCE CHIEF: TEST WEAPONS ON TESTY U.S. MOBS

2006-09-13T06:31:00.000-05:00

Washington (AP)---Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

CNN News
September 12, 2006

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

***If you don't think that the Bush administration is crazy after this, then maybe it's you that is nuts!

Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that can also be effective in disabling some electronic devices.

***What about people with pace makers?

On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bid will be put on next month, and there are 2 qualified bidders: The Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

***It'll probably be Airbus, since it is partly owned by Gillespie who was once the chairman of the RNC! This way, the Republicans get a cut!

The contract is expected to be worth at least $20B (&euro 15.75B).

Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatments.

Wynne, also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserve jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8B (&euro 1.4B) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.

***How can you close bases during wartime? That's why we are losing in Afghanastan & Iraq. This administration is too untraditional to be successful. The military is not a corporation, like they are trying to run this country! Besides, everything that Bush tried to succeed at in life failed. Look at what he's doing to our country. And now he wants the American people to be experimented on? What's up with that?

He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.

"We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts," said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to "take some appetite suppresant pills." He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.

The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24%.

***Do you believe what Wynne had to say about using high-powered microwave devices on the American public? Who is he? Dr. Mengele from Hitler's Germany? Why would our government allow such a thing to happen?

Veterans Issues: "CAN WE TRUST THE INFO WE'RE GETTING ABOUT OUR EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM?"

2006-09-12T09:58:00.000-05:00

Veteran's Advocate Jim Strickland says, "No, you can not!"

Jim Strickland
via: VA Watchdog dot Org
September 11, 2006

Depleted uranium (DU) has caught your attention and generated some mail for me recently. Veterans are hearing more buzz about their risks and want to know who to turn to for meaningful information. More than anything else, Veterans want to know if they should be concerned or if they can beleive what Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are telling them.

Depleted Uranium is a by-product of the process of creating nuclear energy or making weapons. Its radioactivity is low and brief exposure probably isn't as hazardous as a dental x-ray. It's a super-hard material that makes it ideal for weapons designed to penetrate heavy armor or in the obverse, building heavy armor that's impenatrable to conventional weaponry. The health hazard comes in not from brief exposure but from breathing fumes or inhaling microscopic fragments when DU is used as intended. Sucked into your lungs it stays there emitting its radioactive particles...forever.

Imbedded shrapnel in human tissue is a no-brainer, retaining "souvenirs" from the battlefield and taking the stuff home secretively is a known issue too...soldiers have done that since before the Romans conquered their world.

Today, DOD & VA are telling us that we needn't worry, we should be happy! They're aware of all the potentials and have a handle on everything. Hmmm, there's that strange and annoying feeling again...it's like I've been here before.

I'm a curmudgeon and a cynic and I'm proud of it. I have a relaible built-in detection system that alerts me if someone is trying to be less than straight-up with me. This isn't a complex system, it's been perfected over the years by paying close attention to the historic behavior of the individual or entity sharing info with me today. If they weren't open and truthful back then, I doubt they will today.

One of the many advantages of being 57 years old is that I remember the 1960s well. There was a little conflict going on in a small country on the other side of the globe no one had ever heard of. America was sending in advisors to assist the good guys in their fight against the evil of communism because for some reason the French had pulled their military out.

In a flash we were up to our eyeballs in a fight most of us didn't understand and the happy days of the early 60s were suddenly replaced with images of our country torn in two. Young American students were being shot and killed on American college campuses by uniformed young American troops and terms like "body bag" and "napalm" entered our lexicon as we heard the daily reports of enemy and American KIA.

We had never fought a war like this before, there were no front lines and we couldn't see the enemy in a country that had few spaces that weren't lush, thick jungle. We wanted a war that was more conventional and an enemy we could see so we decided to turn the landscape into something we understood...a treeless clearing that would expose the enemy and force the fight to be on our terms.

In 1961, the United States began spraying herbicides to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam. Agent Orange was the most heavily used of the rainbow of dioxin laced defoliants. It's said that Americn pilots quipped, "Remember! Only you can prevent forests!," while they flew over hundreds of thousands of acres spraying thousand of 55 gallon drums of AO. In 1969, the extensice use of herbicides was halted after a National Institute of Health report concluded that dioxon caused stillbirth in mice. It was in about 1971 that the last gallon or two of AO was used. Today, dioxin is banned worldwide.

It was about 1978 that the VA began to receive claims from Veterans who said that their health problems were a result of their exposure to AO while serving in RVN. In 1979, Congress enacted Public Law 96-151 and ordered VA to conduct a study to determine if expsoure to AO had caused health issues for the RVN Veterans.

We Viet Nam veterans have a collective memory that tells us that soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen were hardly ever instructed in the safe use of dioxin compounds and at the same time we were assured that it wasn't going to hurt us. Military service carries risk and there's a strong macho component that makes us shrug off danger, particularly if our leaders are promising us that we're safe. So, many of our 17, 18, and 19-year-old troops lit a cigarette [provided in our rations...they were good for you] and strapped on a backpack sprayer of AO and went out to kill some jungle.

Accurate records of exposure are non-existent. We aren't even sure if we used 19 million gallons or 21 million gallons. Until the late 1980s, there was still debate as to whether there was even a problem. At a 1983 convention, the American Medical Association (AMA) offered a resolution calling for a public information campaign on dioxin to "prevent irrational reaction and unjustified public fright." That AMA said that, "the news media have made dioxon the focus of a witch hunt by disseminating rumors, hearsay and unconfirmed, unscientific reports..."

Problem? With Dioxon and Vietnam troops? What Problem? We see no problem. It's only those whining Veterans again.

Today, we know that we were lied to. There's no other way to phrase that and make it more palatable. Our government failed us by refusing to act in a timely fashion to collate records, contact Veterans, establish information centers and health screening programs and to recognize and adequately compensate those who were harmed.

If you take a walk through a VA Medical Center with me today you'll soon become aware of the enormity of it all...the halls are blanketed with Veterans being treated for cancers, diabetes, nerve diseases and more and they are all "presumptive" to be related to AO exposure. More come forward or die quietly every day.

None of those Veterans had any prior notification of anything they could do to help themselves. Although there are numerous AO programs available today for RVN Veterans, they continue to be passive, the Veterans has to seek them out and ask for help, VA does not seek out the Veteran to notify them of programs available to assist them. Are you aware that a large group of Korean Veterans may have dioxin exposure? No, probably not...the VA isn't shouting that from the rooftops either.

The DOD says, "The voluntary Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium Medical Follow-up program remains the most important source for identifying potential untoward health effects..." "Voluntaty" means that you have to hear about it from a friend or stumble across it on the Internet, much like the Agent Orange registry in current use, VA isn't going to the trouble to urge you to participate.

How many of you knew (until you read that sentence above) that VA is conducting a Medical Follow-up Program for those of you who served where DU may have been used?

In answer to you who have asked me, "Can we trust the information we're getting about our exposure to Depleted Uranium?," the answer is a very firm, "No, you can not."

Once again, our government is reactive, not proactive and more concerned with partisan politics than aiding a Veteran. If you have been exposed or if you have been in any arena, combat or otherwise, where you may have been exposed, you must seek out and demand information to help yourself. Don't wait until this becomes another Agent Orange debacle. Don't act surprised as your health deteriorates 20 years from today and some doctor tells you it's caused by DU exposure and "If you'd only gotten treatment earlier..."

YOU HAVE TO BECOME POLITCALLY AWARE AND ACTIVE AND LET YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AT EVERY LEVEL KNOW YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE SILENT. DEMAND A REGISTRY, DEMAND FEDERAL SCREENING PROGRAMS AND DON'T ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS THAN THE BEST. YOU GAVE YOUR BEST, IT'S NOW TIME SOME OF THAT IS RETURNED TO YOU.

War on Terror: WHOSE WAR ON TERROR?

2006-09-12T08:01:00.000-05:00

"We are all Americans," wrote Le Monde on September 12, 2001. And so it was with most people in the Muslim world, who were as appalled as anyone else at the carnage of the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York. Indeed, when America responded to the attacks, almost no one mourned the fall of the Taliban, who were universally condemned for their fanaticism.

This unanimity of opinion no longer exists. In the 5 years since the attacks, 2 audiences for the so-called "war on terror" have emerged. Indeed, as the "war" progressed, the audience closest to to action began to see the emerging combat in a way that was diametrically opposed to that of the United States and the West.

To the U.S. administration, every act in the drama of the war was seen as discrete and self-contained: Afghanastan, Iraq, Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Bush administration, having proclaimed a war on terror, invaded and occupied countries and yet failed to see that these events were being linked in the eyes of people in the region. Glued to Al Jazeera and other Arab satellite channels, the various battles of the "war on terror" came to be viewed as a single chain of events in a grand plot against Islam.

Worse yet, America waved the banner of democracy as it prosecuted its wars. But hopes for democracy---whether secular or Islamist---for the people concerned have been buried in the rubble and carnage of Baghdad, Beirut and Kandahar.

Many Muslims understand---as well as anyone in the West, and in the same terms---the underlying causes of the alienation that animates Islamic radicalism and violence. They know that the rigid dictatorships of the region have paralyzed their populations. Only those consumed by the fires of their rage seem to be able to melt the shackles of these authoritarian societies.

But the price of escape is a kind of deformation. Embittered, fanatical, vengeful: Those who rebel against the status quo enter the wider world seeking retaliation, not just against the regimes that deformed them, but against the West, which propped up the region's authoritarians in the interest of "stability."

Many Muslims also understand that the problem of Palestine, unsloved for 3 generations, goes beyond the suffering of the Palestinian people. They know that the region's dictators have used Palestine to justify their misrule and to avoid political and economic liberalization.

So when America called for democracy, the hearts of many in the region soared with the hope that reform would come at last. But America, as so many times before, let them down. As people at last began to hope for more liberal and decent societies, the U.S. continued to endorse the regimes that were repressing them. America simply could not adhere to its own democracy-promotion script.

After the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanastan, the U.S. turned its sights on the secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Instead of encouraging reform of the Saudi/Wahhabi regime---the system that spawned 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks---the average Muslim saw America as waging war on a regime that had nothing to do with that crime.

Many Muslims acquiesced in this deviation, viewing the invasion of Iraq as partof the passing of dictatorship and the coming of democracy. But the bloodstained shambles of the U.S. occupation led America to abandon the quest for democracy. The deeper America sank into the Iraqi quagmire, the more the U.S. began to turn a blind eye to the region's surviving dictators, particularly those in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.

Indeed, the last thing the region's dictators wanted to see was a democratic Iraq. Almost from the moment of Saddam's fall, Saudi/Wahhabi jihadists poured into Iraq almost unimpeded. Worse yet, the Muslims who supported the project to democratize Iraq widely suspect that the Sunni resistance that incited the Iraqi civil war has been financed by Saudi oil money. [Terrorism also kept Iraqi oil from becoming a serious challenger to Saudi Arabia].

So the effort to democratize Iraq---indeed, the entire American project to democrtaize the region---has fallen under deep suspicion by even most moderate of Muslims. America, they believe, only wants a democracy that suits its interests. If Palestinians freely vote for Hamas, their choice is actively opposed. Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution," which galvanized the West in the same way as Ukraine's Orange Revolution, has been systematically undermined.

With democracy in most of the region still a long way off---indeed, perhaps a more distant prospect now than 5 years ago---U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice repeats her mantra that the dead civilians of Beirut, Sidon, Tyre and Gaza represent the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East. But until the West stops regarding dead babies as political props, we cannot understand how the Muslim world perceives all that has happened since 9/11. Only then will we understand why the unified view of 5 years ago has fractured so violently.

Tom Paine dot com
By: Mai Yamani
September 11, 2006

AMERICAN AIRLINES STATEMENT REGARDING THE PATH TO 9/11 ON ABC-TV

2006-09-12T07:51:00.000-05:00

FORT WORTH, Texas---American Airlines today issued the following statement regarding the ABC-TV program The Path to 9/11:

"The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occured on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

"A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

"This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."

American said it will have no further comment beyond the statement at this time.

Yahoo!
September 11, 2006
Source: American Airlines, Inc.

WORLD REMEMBERS 9-11 BUT NOT MANY CRYING

2006-09-12T06:55:00.000-05:00

The nations of the world joined Monday in solemn rememberance of Sept. 11---but for many, resentment of the United States flowed as readily as tears.

Forbes
By: Elaine Ganley
September 11, 2006

Critics say Americans have squandered the goodwill that prompted France's Le Monde newspaper to proclaim "We are all Americans" that somber day after the attacks, and that the Iraq war and other U.S. policies have made the world less safe in the 5 years since.

Heads bowed in moments of silence for the 3,000 killed in the attacks on New York and Washington---while the No. 2 al-Qaida leder issued new warnings in a videotape. And dissident voices said the world has traded in civil liberties and other democratic rights in its war on terror.

In Europe, where Islamic terror has struck twice since 9/11, in the Madrid train bombings and the London transit attacks, the silent tributes were tinged with doubts and recriminations.

Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel---an advocate of repairing ties with Washington that were frayed under her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder---had veiled criticism of the United States, saying: "The ends cannot justify the means."

"In the fight against international terror ... respect for human rights, tolerance and respect for other cultures must be the maxim of our actions, along with decisiveness and international cooperation," she said.

The international landscape has changed irreversibly since terrorists hijacked four airplanes in 2001, crashing 2 into the World Trade Center and another into a Pennsylvania field.

Adding to the global jitters, a senior al-Qaeda leader issued a new warning.

"You gave us every legitimacy and every opportunity to continue fighting you," said Ayman al-Zawahiri, addressing the United States. "You should worry about your presence in the [Persian] Gulf and the second place you should worry about is Israel."

Another video posted on the Internet by al-Qaeda showed previously unseen footage of a smiling Osama bin Laden and other commanders in a mountain camp apparently planning the September 11 attacks.

Allies in the U.S.-led war on terrorism renewed their resolve Monday to fight fanaticism, while skeptics countered that they can no longer follow a superpower they say has relinquished its right to lead.

"Right after Sept. 11 the world was united with Americans. Their moral leadership was unquestioned," Paul Zalewski, head of the Polish parliament's foreign relations committee, wrote in the Gazeta Wyborcza. "However, this strong moral authority was abused as a result of the Iraq war."

Exactly 5 years after its message of solidarity, Le Monde titled its lead editorial "The Mistakes of Bush."

In Caracus, Venezuela, about 200 marchers protested what they called "imperialist terrorism" carried out by the United States since the 9/11 attacks. Demonstrators---many of them supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and some of Arab descent---carried Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian flags. Many criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanastan.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani wrote President Bush on behalf of the Iraqi people, expressing condolences to the families of Sept. 11 victims.

"On this sad and memorable day, I would like to reiterate the gratitude of the people of Iraq for the people of America and for your leadership," Talabani wrote. "The people of Iraq will never forget those who helped them in getting rid of the most brutal and terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein."

New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark joined many when she said: "No, we're not more secure since 9/11."

Clark said more should be done to reach out to moderate states and leaders in the Islamic world to encourage understanding between different peoples, and to help end the sense of alienation and exclusion among some young Muslims that fuels extremism.

In Europe, bells tolled in Rome's city hall square. Bouquets of white roses and yellow carnations were piled in a memorial garden where the names of 67 Britons killed in the New York attacks are inscribed. Relatives tearfully remembered their dead.

"It doesn't get any easier, but our minds are much calmer, and we can think through all the events without being flooded by tears and sadness," said Adrian Bennett, whose 29-year-old son, Oliver, was killed.

At a 38-nation Asia-Europe summit in Helsinki, Finalnd, leaders stood in silence in a circle. The stock exchanges in Nordic and Baltic countries observed two minutes of silence to honor the victims.

French President, Jacques Chriac, in Helsinki, reiterated in a written message to Bush his nation's "friendship" in the fight against terrorism.

A week after the Sept 11 attacks, Chirac flew over the World Trade Center site---the first foreign leader to pay personal condolences. That solidarity quickly dissapated into rancor in the buildup to the Iraq war, when Chirac led opposition to Bush's plans.

Israel's Haaretz daily expressed disappointment and cynicism in an op-ed piece that said: "This is Sept. 11 five years later: a political tool in the hands of the Bush Administration."

In southeast Asia, U.S. and Phillipine troops fighting Islamic extremists in the jungles prayed for peace and safety. Other rememberances took place in Japan, Australia, Finland, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who won the country's first post-Taliban election, expressed the appreciation of the Afghan people to the U.S. for the "sacrifices of your sons and daughters," in rebuilding his country. But in the Afghan capital, many residents said they had not seen much improvement since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban for harboring bin Laden.

Despite about 20,000 U.S. forces fighting a-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanastan, and about the same number of NATO troops, and billions in aid, the Taliban resistance has shaken the country, while corruption has stymied development.

In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer led a solemn military ceremony outside the alliance's headquarters to remember the victims of 9/11. A lone bugler played taps while a ceremonial guard, drawn from each of the 26 NATO member nations, lowered national flags to half-staff.

"Terrorism remains a threat to all of us...this is why we are in Afghanastan, the cradle of 9/11," de Hoop Scheffer said, calling on NATO nations to "strengthen our alliance politically and militarily to meet this new scourage."

5 YEARS LATER, SOLIDARITY AND SKEPTICISM

2006-09-12T05:54:00.000-05:00

Leaders across the world Monday expressed solidarity with the United States on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. But behind the soaring rhetoric, a strong skepticism remained toward America's war on terror and President George W. Bush's leadership.

International Herald Tribune
By: Dan Bilefsky
September 12, 2006

There were outpourings of grief for the nearly 3,000 dead, among the Britons, Indians and many other nationalities. The target 5 years ago was America, but globalization saw to it that the attacks on New York and Washington reverberated far beyond the United States.

Daniel Keohane, foreign policy expert at the Center for European Reform in London, said that common global concerns such as the war against terorism, fear's over Iran's nuclear program and the recent war in Lebanon were helping to bridge the differences between the United States and its European allies.

But he said a wide gap remained between political leaders' grudging support for Washington and the wariness among the European public. Nowhere has this been more pronounced that in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair's outspoken support has caused his popularity to plummet and inspired intensifying pressure from him to leave office.

"We are all Americans," the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed on Sept. 12, 2001, in the aftermath of the attacks.

But its headline Monday---"Bush's Mistakes"---bluntly addressed the growing disillusionment with his conduct of the war in Iraq.

Le Monde qualified the war in Afghanastan a "relative" success but the invasion of Iraq "a major error."

"In 5 years, the United States has pushed the world toward the clash of civilizations Al Qaeda had wanted," Le Monde said.

A Swiss newspaper, Le Temps, had a biting variation on Le Monde's 2001 headline.

"Europe has long stopped saying, 'We are all Americans.' In London you can read, 'We're all Hezbollah,'" it said.

The commemoration ceremonies were darkened Monday as Al Qaeda renewed its call for more terrorist attacks against the United States.

Appearing in a new video in which he urged Muslims to step up their attacks, Al Qaeda deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, warned of "new events" and said that Gulf allies of Washington and Israel were the next targets.

With Europeans digesting recent foiled attacks in Britain, Germany and Denmark, America's allies expressed solidarity with the United States and vowed to defeat terrorism.

"These horrific attacks clearly demonstrted that terrorism is a threat to all states and to all peoples," said a statement from the European Union.

In Germany, Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in front of 70,000 people Monday in the German pilgrimage center of Altotting and listened to a brief prayer for peace. In Britain---Washington's most steadfast ally in Afganastan and Iraq---public ceremonies were few at the request of victims' families. A new poll Monday indicated that only 7% of Britons believe that the United States and Briain are winning the fight against global terrorism.

In Europe, the outpouring of high-level support for the United States reflected renewed solidarity following a prolonged chill in the trans-Atlantic relations following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

After Sept. 11, 2001, America's European allies rallied around the United States. But Bush's unilaterism after the attacks alienated many of America's friends and divided Europe.

Analysts said the European animosity that followed was slowly beginning to dissipate, but that enormous skepticism about U.S. foreign policy and Bush remained.

The growing clash between Islamic fundamentalism and the West---reflected in attacks in London and Madrid and in the cartton controversy in Denmark that triggered protests throughout the Muslim world---had helped bring the United States closer to European governments by creating a global community of shared values. Yet it has also alienated many Europeans, who fear Europe's civil liberties are at risk. Allegations that European governments colluded with Washington by allowing CIA agents to interrogate suspected terrorists on European soil have caused widespread consternation.

According to a recent Transatlantic Trends survey of 12 European countries published by the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., only 3 European countries---Britain, the Netherlands, and Romania---view United States leadership more positively than negatively. When asked to evaluate feelings of warmth toward the United States on a scale of 100, the overall response among Europeans declined from 64 degrees in 2002---the year after the attacks---to 51 degrees in 2006. "While people remain empathetic about Sept. 11, that does not erase their unease with the way Bush conducts America's foreign policy or with European governments that support him," Keohane said. "Europeans remain wary of Bush and his division of the world into 'us' and 'them,' which they don't think is conductive to solving global conflicts."

Outside of Europe, the reaction to the anniversary was more ambivalent. In Afghanastan, President Hamid Karzai thanked the United States for its help in forcing the Taliban from power. But Afghan newspapers had little coverage of the anniversaty and Afghans complained that their lives had seen little improvement since the U.S. invasion in 2001.

Their skepticism resonated at a NATO meeting in Brussels, where calls by the alliance for reinforcements of up to 2,500 troops have met a cool reception by countries increasingly wary of alienating public opinion and putting their soldiers in harm's way.

Australia chose the anniversary to appeal to moderate Muslims to be more critical of terrorism, while Pakistan warned against pinning the blame for terrorism on Islam and urged the international community to attack poverty and alienation instead.

"We are not attacking Muslims generally, but you have to call terrorism what it is," Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, said in an interview with the Australian newspaper. "It is a movement that invokes a totally blasphemous and illegitimate way the sanction of Islam to justify what it does."

Chinese state media chided the United States for destabilizing the world with the war in Iraq.

"It's fair to say that September 11 changed the United States," said an editorial in People's Daily. "But what really changed the world was the erroneous U.S. response," it added, "especially the war in Iraq."

Such criticism was expressed more vociferously in the Middle East, even in moderate Arab countries allied with the United States. Egypt's press was particularly angry, sharply criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

"Five years after the disaster of 'black Tuesday,' terrorism is still present, but even more dangerous and more spread out," Mohammed Barakat wrote on the front page of Al Akhbar.

Iraq: NAVY TIMES: NEW REPORT CASTS DOUBTS ON JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR

2006-09-11T16:04:00.000-05:00

FYI---From Navy Times

September 8, 2006
By Rick Maze

A new report from the Senate Intelligence Committee casts continued doubts in the Bush Administration's justification for going to war with Iraq.

The report, released Friday, finds no direct connections between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., amd dismisses as unfounded pre-war statements by Bush administration officials about a supposed meeting between one of the Sept.11 hijackers and an Iraqi intelligence official.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been among those trying to make the link. On Sept. 26, 2002, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al-Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction."

In February 2003, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saddam Hussein's connection with terrorists "go back decades" and "are growing every day."

The intelligence committee report, the second of what is planned to be 5 reports on pre-war intelligence, said it found CIA reports that spoke of the possibility of cooperation but no evidence of meetings or any actual contact.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and an intelligence committee member, noted that President Bush said in a Wednesday speech that one of the hardest parts of his job was trying to connect Iraq to the war on terrorism.

"That shouldn't surprise anybody," Levin said. "The president's decision to ignore intelligence community assessments prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 cost him any credibility he may have had on the issue."

Republicans tried to downplay the report. "I think that anyone who has been paying attention the last couple of years will recognize that there is little that is new in this report," said Sen. Pat Roberts (D-KS), the intelligence committee chairman. "As we have all known since 2004, this nation and our allies experienced an intelligence failure with respect to pre-war intelligence on Iraq."

And Robert noted, it was not just the Bush administration led astray. He noted that top Democrats, including Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, ranking Democrat in the intelligence committee, were among those saying in 2002 that Iraq had an aggressive nuclear weapons program and could have a nuclear bomb within 5 years. "The long-known fact is that the pre-war intelligence was wrong," Roberts said.

***The Bush administration, including Bush and the Pentagon cherry picked the info that was given to the Senators, knowing about all of the other info they didn't give to them. If you think that the Senators seen all of the same info that Bush did, you are wrong.

Afghanastan: TRAPPED IN AFGHANASTAN---PART II

2006-09-11T13:59:00.000-05:00

While both the Bush Administration and the Blair government have adopted the principle of establishing "democracy" by killing off the "bad guys," they are beginning to feel the heat. In Iraq, of course, the heat is intense and large-scale desertion from the Iraqi Army has been reported. In Afghanastan, troop desertion is not new news. According to available statistics, about 1/3 of the troops leave with their weapons after receiving military training. Many of these deserters were known followers of dozens of powerful warlords, who work selectively with the occupying foreign troops.

The endless killing of Afghan civilians has worried President Karzia---America's best hope in Afghanastan. Karzia, who has a very small following within the Pushtun community, to which he belongs, has already announced that he will not seek another term as Afghan President.

Addressing a press conference in Beijing during his visit to China in July, Karzai said: "I did expect a rise in militant activity. And for two years I have systematically, and on a daily basis warned the international community of what was developing in Afghanastan and of the need for a change of approach in this regard." Karzai called for strengthening the police and army, extra resources and equipment, and better assistance for provincial government improvements, but perhaps most important, he urged a change in the broad strategy and "the need on behalf of the international community to reassess the manner in which this war against terror is conducted."

Karzai's recent utterances indicate the failure of the government and international supporters to stabilize the Taliban heartland has severely impeded efforts to develop the area, shaking faith in Karzai's ability to bring change. His government is weak and unable to find solutions to people's problems, and "you see this unhappiness in the assembly and the bazaar," Abdul Hamid Mubares, a former deputy minister for information and culture told the ABC news recently.

Although Karzai was careful not to blame Pakistan while he was in China (keeping in mind the close relationship between Beijing and Islamabad), he nonetheless urged the international community to switch the "war on terror" to focus on the sources of the "terrorism" in Afghanastan. It was evident that he was diplomatically pointing the finger of blame at his eastern neighbor. Speaking in Dari, the language spoken in Kabul, Karzai expressed "dissatisfaction with the lack of strategic decisions from the international community to stop terrorism....Strategic means the world should address the place where the terrorism is being trained, financed, given an ideology, and encouraged," he said.

FORGOTTEN PROMISES

It is almost a certainty that Afghanastan, where the Bush Administration would like the American troops to stay for a long, long time, will pose serious moral questions in the future. The armed action that ended the Taliban government in the Winter of 2001 was perceived by most Americans as just, at that time of history. Five years later, the limitations of even a just war are also becoming painfully obvious. Bush and Blair went to find Osama bin Laden. "We will smoke him out" the Texas way, said President Bush.

If the Taliban had handed Osama over for trial, the cause for celebre for the Afghan War would have disappeared. Five years of armed efforts later, Bush and Blair still cannot find Osama. On the other hand, as one leading Indian journalist, M. J. Akbar, pointed out, Osama bin Laden can find any television channel he wants, when he chooses to send a videotaped message. "Any journalist from a television channel can get in touch with his group. Those videos do not travel from Pakistan to Qatar on a flying carpet, do they? But the combined might of the CIA, MI6, and Pakistan's ISI cannot find Osama," Akbar said.

Five years is a long time for an average American to remember what was said back then. A favorite phrase of America and Britain five years ago was to label the Taliban militia as the "bad guys," accusing them of narco-terrorism. Terrorists were using the wealth from Afghanastan's poppy crop to finance their evil plot to destroy the American way of life. Washington and London had said then, to justify the war and take the moral upper hand against the obscure Islamic jihadists, the Taliban militia. But in the five years of Bush-Blair management, Afghanastan's poppy cultivation has reached a record high. This narcotic is not meant for Afghans, or it would fetch a very small price; its true value comes from the euros and pounds and dollars it fetches in Europes and America.

Akbar points out that "those are the currencies that keep farmers in Afghanstan happy, and the criminals who run the drug trade in comfort. Have you ever wondered why not a single supply line of drugs from Afghanastan to the West is ever busted by the military forces stationed in Afghanastan? I may have missed the news, but have you ever heard of smugglers being caught and punished?" On the other hand, as Amin Tarzi, another journalist, commented recently, some countries' troops are under orders to look the other way when trucks loaded with narcotics pass by.

***The reason that no one is getting busted in Afghanastan is because: Bush said that it isn't part of the war on terror! DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

Afghanastan: TRAPPED IN AFGHANASTAN---Part I

2006-09-11T07:11:00.000-05:00

TRAPPED IN AFGHANASTAN

WHERE POPPIED BLOOM FASTER THAN DEMOCRACY

This article appears in the September 1, 2006 issue of EIR
By: Ramtanu Maitra

After years of misleading the American population, the Bush-Cheney Administration is now grudgingly admitting that the problems of Afghanastan not only are not going away, but growing by the day. While the anti-U.S. and anti-NATO Afghan rebels are training their guns more and more effectively at the occupying forces, Afghanastan's poppy fields are blooming as they never bloomed before.

Afghanastan is not in the minds of most Americns; it is too far away, and it is not perceived as a threat to the American population. This mindset is surely helping the Bush-Cheney Administation, but the questions is: How long can this mindset continue? News from Afganastan seldom appears on the front pages of the U.S. media. But the trickle of information that does get through, is enough to make it understood that the troops sent by Washington and London are trapped, and their very survival is becoming the key issue.

Gone are the fist-thumping days of 2002, when President Bush used to talk about "Marshall Plan" to develop Afghanastan and make it opium-free.

In 2006, what we hear about Afghanastan is its grinding poverty, widespread illiteracy, disease, and lack of drinking water and electricity for almost 80% of the country---and an increasingly powerful insurgency. According to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, government revenue in Afghanastan is equal to barely 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP), lower than the impoversihed governments of sub-Saharan Africa.

The U.S. occupying forces did little to alleviate Afghanastan's poverty. Opium production, which was diminishing during the Taliban regime's uneasy tenure of five years (1996-2000), has picked up greatly. The Taliban militia, which was ousted by the Anglo-Americans in the winter of 2001, had enforced an effective ban of poppy growing by threatening to jail farmers, which resulted in a sharp reduction in opium production in 2001. But neither Washington nor London could conceive of threatening opium producers with jail terms. Moreover, a few of the drug warloads are now helping the U.S.-backed puppet democracy to stay in place in Kabul.

***I thought the Bush administration didn't deal with terrorists under any circumstances?

Even this nominal Afghan democracy, however, which resembles a slab of Swiss cheese, is now seemingly unworkable. In recent months, media restrictions have been introduced in Kabul. Shaken by the reports of the numbers of dead and injured coming in Afghanastan's south, the country's intelligence agency delivered a message to the majority of broadcasters and publishers that could have been taken from a Soviet-era handbook of press manipulation. The agency warned that the Taliban commanders' interviews and nightly scenes of violence---bombs and bodies---on the news is affecting "the national morale." Washington's showcase democrat in Kabul, President Karzai did not reject the press restrictions, but instead noted that national security was the most important factor for the media to consider, while supporting a free press.

A MILLION POPPIES BLOOM

All these little deviations are embarrassing to some Americans. They find it difficult to acknowdedge that since the successful ouster of the fundamentalist Taliban militia and the introduction of "democracy," opium production in Afghanastan has jumped up sharply. A Western anti-narcotics official in Kabul told the Christian Science Monitor on Aug 16 that preliminary crop projections showed about 370,650 acres of opium poppy cultivated this season---up from 257,000 acres in 2005, and up from the previous record of 323, 700 acres in 2004, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. At the same time, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent this year in counter-narcotics campaigns.

The final figures of the yield of opium resin from the poppies will be confirmed only when the UN agency completes its assessment of the crop in September, based on satellite imagery and ground surveys. However, The United Nations said that because there was no report of any sharp drop in opium productivity this year, it is safe to assume that at least 6,200 tons of opium resin will be harvested---enough to produce 620 tons of heroin. Thus, it is almost a certainty that the U.S.-and NATO-occupied Afghanastan, under the "democratic rule" of President Hamid Karzai, will succeed in producing almost 95% of the world's heroin.

The "failure" to control the growing annual opium production has developed in the West in recent months a coterie of people who now openly undermine the assertion of a linkage between opium-generated cash and the insurgency. On the other hand, the military on the ground does not subscribe to that. Speaking before the Pentagon reporters on Aug 17, U.S. Gen. James Jones, who heads the NATO forces, said the opium production "certainly cries out for more international focus. The international community understands that we have to have more success in the narcotics field, and we have to do that in the fairly near future."

From the reports coming from Afghanastan, it is evident that the American and NATO troop presence there is hardly helping the Afghans. The foreign troops, who moved around in armored cars with heads popping out of gun turrets, are increasingly identified as enemies, and not friends or saviors, as Washington and London would like gullible Americans to believe.

A DEATHTRAP

The situation in Afghanastan is becoming like that in Iraq, where the occupying forces, and their collaborators, are left with 2 choices: kill or be killed. On Aug 17, the U.S. military had reported that it had "mistakenly" dropped a bomb on a two-vehicle border-police patrol in southeastern Paktika province, killing 10 Afghan police officers. The same day, a suicide bomber blew himself up near an Afghan police post, killing himself and wounding 7 police in the volatile southern province of Uruzgan, the provincial police chief said. Soon afterwards, a foreign soldier with U.S.-led coalition troops was wounded when a roadside bomb hit his convoy in the neighboring southern province of Kandahar. The list goes on and on.

The attacks are the latest in a rising cycle of violence, especially in the south, where the opium landlords and the Pushtun opposition to the foreign troops and the opium landlords rule supreme. More than 1,600 people have died nationwide in violent incidents since the beginning of May, mostly in the south, according to a tally compiled by the Associated Press based on reports from Afghan officials, the U.S. military, and NATO.

In the south and southeast, the insurgents have fully asserted themselves, and the NATO-led security forces are either evading the enemy or moving around in armored cars in less-congested urban areas. In the northeast, too, the U.S.-led troops have run into serious resistance. Coming in from the Pakistan side of the border, insurgents have now begun to threaten the American troops.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the only way either the U.S. troops, or the NATO-led security forces, can survive in Afghanastan is by killing the Afghans. Any Afghan civilian who gets killed by NATO or U.S. troops nowadays is immediately identified as a "Taliban militant."

End of Part I.....

Illinois National Guard: ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD SHORT ON EQUIPMENT FOR DISASTERS HERE

2006-09-10T08:41:00.000-05:00

Washington---Five years after the September 11 terrorist attacks that struck the East Coast, the Illinois National Guard does not have all the equipment it deems necessary to rapidly respond to a disaster at home.

Suburban Chicago News
By: Dennis Conrad (AP)
September 9, 2006

Far from it.

Called to duty by President George W. Bush to help fight the global war against terrorism, Illinois guardsmen have left more than $40M of equipment in war-torn Iraq.

***Isn't it this Bush administration that keeps telling us we are going to get hit again? If so, how are we supposed to protect ourselves? All of this equipment is needed here at home. This is what happened in New Orleans. We all remember the results of that.

Even equipment that was still working after heavy use was left behind for replacement units.

The rest---ranging from worn out or wiped out trucks and Humvees to night vision devices and radios---decay in the desert.

***This is what the Bush administration has done for national security all across the country! You tell me how the Republicans are so great for national security!

In Illinois towns the guardsmen call home, what is most noticeable may be what is not there, according to Guard-compiled data released by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's office:

* Of 1,438 Humvees the Guard considers necessary, only 716 are available.

* Of 169 trucks required, only 26 are on hand.

* Less than 10% of the Army Guard's necessary medium and heavy trucks and only 65% of its required light trucks are available.

* Of the 34% of equipment not deployed for the war, 10% has been found unacceptable for deployment due to age, a parts shortage or inadequate armor protection.

Durbin, a member of the Senate's Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said the picture in Illinois is the same elsewhere, with Guard units commonly facing equipment shortages.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported last fall that nondeployed Guard units nationwide had only about one-third of the equipment they need for overseas missions, and that "hampers their ability to prepare for future missions and conduct domestic operations."

Durbin is particularly alarmed about what impact equipment shortages would have in case of state emergencies.

"We should never overlook the fact that, God forbid, we could face an emergency in our state," he said. "Whether it's one of our nuclear facilities or a chemical facility or one of our transportation facilities, we would be calling on the Guard to respond to an act of terrorism, which I hope never happens, but we have to be prepared."

***You got that right! If Topinka wins the governorship of Illinois (which she won't), what is she going to do? Give Bush the rest of our equipment? She hangs on Bush's every word. He is not good for this country and she is not good for this state! Maybe that's why she's under investigation.

PENTAGON VS. THE PRESS

2006-09-10T08:38:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon is taking bids for a 2-year, $20M contract to read newspapers and watch TV news and rate the daily coverage of the war in Iraq. The "tone," "key themes," and "messages" of coverage in the U.S. and the Arab world are to be evaluated as positive, negative or neutral.

Chicago Tribune
September 9, 2006

This project has the aroma of a public-relations boondoggle.

Pentagon brass are understandably frustrated that the media do not always report the war's daily event in positive terms. "They want [war news] to be received by audiences as it is transmitted" by the military, as one public relations expert explained to the the Washington Post, "but they don't like how it turns out." That happens. President Abraham Linclon was notoriously frustrated and angered by coverage of the Civil War, including coverage by this newspaper.

***What kind of positive news can one report covering a war, especially this one in Iraq? It has turned into a civil war! If the reporters were to tell the American people that everything was fine in Iraq, the American people wouldn't listen anymore. Because they know that isn't what's happening. If the Pentagon tries to change the way that the news is reported, they are going to be in for a huge disappointment. It will only be perceived as "more lies" coming for this administration!

It's apparent that the Pentagon has already been doing some analyzing of press coverage. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complained in a recent speech that "a database search of America's leading newspapers" found 10 times more coverage of a soldier who had been punished for misconduct than of the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the war on terror.

***That's because there are a lot of people out there that want to know why our troops' are doing some of the things that they are doing. They are confused! Are the troops doing it because they have been deployed too much? Are they doing it because the military is sending the troops with PTSD back into battle while on drugs? Are they breaking down or is it just a few bad apples? They are inquisitive because they are getting twenty different answers. They are trying to figure it out themselves!

Drawing conclusions from the number of hits in a Google search (if that's how the Pentagon did it) is an inexact science.

But we have to ask---as an editorial page that has supported the Iraq war effort---why is the Pentagon doing this?

That $20M would be far better spent on fighting the Iraq insurgency than on fighting the news media.

Iraq: ARMY OFFICIAL: ''RUMSFELD FORBADE TALK OF POSTWAR''

2006-09-10T07:08:00.000-05:00

Fort Eustis, Virginia---Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

Daily Press (Newport News, Va.)
By: Stephanie Heinatz
September 9, 2006

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Schneid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shineski, the Army chief in 2003, after Shineski told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq.

Schneid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with The Daily Press. He retires in about 3 weeks.

Schneid's comments are further confirmation of the version of events reported in "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," the book by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor.

In 2001, Schneid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistic war plans.

On Sept. 11, he said, "life just went to hell."

That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Schneid, to "get ready to go to war."

A day or two later, Rumsfeld was "telling us we were going to war in Afghanastan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

"Then, just as we were barely into Afghanastan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq."

Schneid said he remembers everyone thinking, "Mr gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanastan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It's just going to be too much."

Planning was kept very hush-hush in those early days.

"There was only a handful of people, maybe 5 or 6, that were involved with that plan because it had to be kept very, very quiet."

There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Schneid said. And in the beginning, the planners were just expanding on it.

"Whether we were going to execute it, we had no idea," Schneid said.

Eventually other military agencies like the transportation and Army material commands had to get involved.

They couldn't just "keep planning this in the dark," Schneid said.

Planning continued to be a challenge.

"The secretary of defense continued to push us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Schneid said. "We won't stay."

Schneid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Schneid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Schneid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American people would not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

Even if the people who laid out the initial war plans had fleshed out post-invasion missions, the fighting and insurgent attacks going on today would have been hard to predict, Schneid said.

"We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things," he said. "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are.

"Now we're going more toward a Civil War. We didn't see that coming."

While Schneid, a soldier since 1977, spoke candidly about the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he remains concerned about the U.S. public's views of the troops. He's bothered by the nationwide divide over the war and fearful that patriotism among citizens will continue to decline.

"We're really hurting right now," he said.

***There is a lot of support for our troops. They had nothing to do with the planning of the war. What Schneid needs to know is that the American people "Support The Troops," but they don't "Support the President!" The Bush Administration is trying to confuse the people, just like they are doing with Iraq and the war on terror. They are not one in the same. They are 2 totally different entities, as is our support for our troops and the support for the preseident. You can support one without supporting the other. The Bush administration doesn't want to do that though. They don't want the American people to see the difference between the two because then that will show how many people "really DON'T" support the president!

"God Bless the American People and Our Troops!"

Politics: THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS STILL UNDER ATTACK AND STILL NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED

2006-09-09T10:22:00.000-05:00

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CALIF), joined Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) and Sheila Johnson Lee (D-TX) and voting rights experts at a voter protection roundtable this week. The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. There is unmistakable evidence that voter suppression of minority voters persists. In fact, in the 2004 elections, voters in predominantly minority districts reported higher rates of inactive voter registrations, a greater percentage of inadequately staffed and equipped polling places, and sometimes even lacked an adequate number of ballots.

Today, there continues to be aggressive attempts of voter suppression---whether through crippling registration requirements, felony penalties targeting voter registration groups, or photo identification laws that amount to modern-day poll taxes. House Democrats will continue to be vigilant in their defense of voter protections and voter rights. We must ensure that every American voter can vote. We must end the continuing attempts to suppress and intimidate minority voters. In America, the right to vote must never be compromised.

Democratic House Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
September 8, 2006

PRIVATIZED WARFARE: THE SUMMER OF DISCONTENT

2006-09-09T10:20:00.000-05:00

For private contractors fighting wars and racking up huge profits without being plagued by pesky accountability, this hasn't been the happiest summer.

In These Times
By: Bill Scher
September 7, 2006

Sure, some solace can be had in the decision of a federal judge in August to overturn a guilty verdict against Custer Battles, the company providing "risk management and security consulting services" in Iraq. The judge concluded that the company couldn't have defrauded the U.S. government with false invoices. While the company had been convicted of defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq from 2003 to 2004, the judge said that despite being funded with taxpayer dollars, the CPA wasn't technically part of the U.S. government.

But then again, in August, a federal jury in Raleigh, N.C., set a legal precedent by convicting CIA contractor David Passaro for his role in the death of a detainee under interrogation in Afghanastan, marking the first time an American civilian had been held criminally accountable for abuse in Afghanastan and Iraq. A couple of weeks later, Blackwater USA-the "professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations firm"---lost its attempt to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit bought by the families of 4 employees brutally killed in Fallujah. In late July, the construction firm Bethel couldn't escape being audited, and lost a $50M contract for mismanaging the long-delayed building of a Basra children's hospital.

And at the end of August, a new report form the Institute For Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy exposed the obscene profits CEOs are making from the "war on terror." The Executive Excess report found that since 9/11, the 34 chief executives at the top publicly traded defense contractor corporations have more than doubled their salaries, taking in $984M and making 44 times that of a general. The average defense contractor CEO makes 308 times that of a private.

September doesn't look so hot for Iraq War profiteer supporters either. A new documentary from Robert Greenwald, Iraq for Sale (available on DVD), shines a fresh, and harsh, spotlight on major contracting corporations. The film tells the story of our privatized military through the voices of former employees, family members of murdered contractors, and actual soldiers who have seen how contractors in Iraq operate.

The film offers up interviews with survivors and the kin of victims from the "Good Friday Massacre," when truck drivers from Halliburton subsidiary KBR were recklessly sent out on a job through hostile territory in military-marked vehicles. Insurgents attacked the convoy, six KBR truckers died, and one other driver remains unaccounted for.

Says one widow, "These men went to do the right thing [and] they were totally taken advantage of...[Halliburton] knew, they knew, that there was more than a good chance that they would be killed." A surviving trucker coolly opined, "It's about contracts...fulfilling the contracts and replacing us if we died. [Halliburton] wanted to continue doing business with the Army, whatever the risks were."

A former military interrogator at Abu Ghraib who worked next to corporate interrogators from CACI International describes his experience this way: "We were uncertain---we knew what our chain of command was---but what's the CACI chain of command?" As Salon dot com's Mark Benjamin says, the Pentagon was "desperate" for intelligence, "panicked," and hired "a bunch of contractors who didn't know what they were doing." (CACI's sorry role in the Abu Ghraib scandal didn't stop its CEO from attacking the authors of the Executive Excess report last year for criticizing defense contractors who earn far more than generals, arguing that "Companies are accountable for profitable performance and sustained customer satisfaction. Generals are not.")

A former employee of Titan, one of the largest providers on linguists in Iraq, explains that "hostility against American soldiers" is sometimes the result of shoddy, or intentinally self-serving, translations by company staff. "There were people who maybe spoke the [English] language, but it was broken, that could not read or write it...and they were hired...Nobody was given a test." And, the employee says, after unskilled people were hired, they weren't appropriately trained or supervised."

Soldiers in Iraq also describe their direct experiences with KBR. One speaks of training KBR staff to fix radios just so they could take over his own job and leave him to "sit up on guard duty to wait around." Another criticizes KBR for systematically allowing long chow lines, where troops are sitting ducks for insurgents, instead of providing food around the clock: "They get paid by how many soldiers they feed, not by how many soldiers they save." A former water purification specialist for KBR, lambastes the company for selling troops "extremely contaminated" water. Through tears, he warns, "a lot of soldiers over there...might come home without a bullet wound, but...with pathogens in their blood because of Halliburton. "Despite the scandalous service, the Executive Excess report found that Halliburton's CEO pocketed $26.6M in 2005.

Much of Iraq For Sale is essentially anecdotal evidence about the perils of privatization. But anecdotes are all we have; our government isn't keeping hard date. The Government Accountability Office has reported that "none of the principal agencies responsible for [Iraq's] reconstruction had complete data on costs associated with using private security providers" and that "inadequate performance date and measures make it difficult to determine the overall progress and impact of U.S. reconstruction efforts."

There is one large hunk of evidence, however: Iraq itself. Have private security firms helped bring security to Iraq? Have private engineering firms helped bring clean water and relaible electricity to Iraq? Has privatization helped the Iraqi oil industry pay for reconstruction costs instead of U.S. taxpeyers? Clearly, no.

The Iraq occupation is simply that latest failure of Bush Era privatization. The starkest example is FEMA. In April 2001, the White House announced its goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work soon after Bush's inauguration. Ine June 2004, the agency privatized its hurricane disaster plan for New Orleans, contracting the work to Innovation Emergency Management, a Baton Rouge, La.-based firm. We all know how that turned out.

The painfully protracted rebuilding of the Gulf Coast is due to privatization as well. An August report from CorpWatch found that several of the "disaster profiteers" botching the job in Iraq, including Bechtel and Halliburton, are doing the same at home. On ABC's August 27 "This Week," Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), estimated that "30 to 40 perecent" of the money going to contractors "never reached anybody, because it went to the contractors for profits."

In the same vein, Republicans have also taken baby steps to privatize Medicare. The new prescription drug plan subsidizes private companies with billions of taxpayer dollars to provide the insurance. Yet according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, that money could have been more efficiently used to offer seniors more complete coverage.

To be fair, the Iraq mess is not primarily the fault of privtization. Imposing "regime change" and permanent military bases at gunpoint in order to aggressively exert dominance over a faraway region was our government's bright idea. But the testimony in Iraq For Sale shows that partially privatizing the endeavor hardly helped the White House achieve its military goals.

One might argue that the lone positive development of the privatization debacle is that it has put the brakes on the neoconservative agenda. Iraq has been so difficult to stabilize, at appears to have delayed plans to push on into Iran. But even that positive comes with a big negative: the sullying of democracy.

Even if you believe (as I do) that the Bush Administration is wholly insecure about promoting democracy, that's how the war is being sold abroad. And the privatized occupation of Iraq has been the absolute worst way to sell it. As one former contractor sums it up at the end of the film, "How you're going to win the hearts and minds of these people, if they see you as cheating your own people if all of this stuff is just for the money?"

With "democracy" now associated with corruption, torture and violence, any future liberal American president attempting to implement a truly pro-democracy foreign policy may have the extra burden trying to convince an increasingly skeptical, beaten-down Arab-Muslim popilation that the real democracy can bring freedom, prosperity and stability.

And yet, despite the relatively poor summer for war profiteers, don't expect things to change very much.

Bethel may have lost a $50M contract, but it still has nearly $3B of contracts for work in Iraq to keep itself busy. Few litigators are following the legal precedent set to prosecute contractors---as CNN reported in June, not one private military contractor in Iraq has been charged with a crime, not even one of the CACI interrogators at Abu Ghraib. According to the Washington Post, those found to be "shooting without cause" in Iraq are generally just "relieved of their duties," instead of prosecuted.

The little victories against privatizing warfare are valuable. But until the Americn public calls for a change in philosophy---on privatization and on warfare---by replacing our leadership at the top, the corporatized Iraq occupation will continue to waste money and endanger the lives of both Americans and Iraqis.

National Security: 5 YEARS AFTER 9/11: AMERICA IS NOT SAFE ENOUGH

2006-09-09T08:32:00.000-05:00

September 8, 2006---Today, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member on the Committee of Homeland Security, and other leading Homeland Security Democrats released a report documenting the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on homeland security, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project's grades on fulfilling each recommendations as of December 2005, Democratic strategies to fulfill the recommendations, and the Democratic record on fulfilling the recommendation so far.

Thompson issued the follwoing statement regarding the release:

"On September 11th, Americans stood united against terrorism and those responsible for the attacks on the nation. We created the 9/11 Commission to ensure that our nation was never left unprepared again. The Commission issued a 567 page report with recommendations to make our nation safe, yet Congress has failed to enact solutions to implement all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

"Five years after 9/11, it is time to move forward and do the right thing. This report documents the gaps and failures that absolutely must be addressed. In addition, I have asked Speaker Dennis Hastert to give numerous homeland security proposals that I and others have introduced an up and down vote on the floor," said Rep. Thompson.

Democratic Leader of the House Government
September 8, 2006

Politics: DEMOCRATS MAKE GOLDEN PROMISE TO DEFEND SOCIAL SECURITY

2006-09-09T08:14:00.000-05:00

"If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after."

President George W. Bush, June 27, 2006

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid led a rally Thursday with Members of Congress and hundreds of seniors and concerned citizens in a continuing effort to Protect Americans' Social Security from the relentless attempts by President Bush and the Republican Congress to privatize Social Security. Their risky privatization scheme would slash benefits and add trillions of dollars in additional debt. Despite the victory of the American people over the Republican privatization plan last year, the dismantling of Social Security's guaranteed benefit is still a very real priority on the President's agenda. With health care costs and pharmaceutical prices climbing, Democrats will do whatever it takes to keep Republicans from denying American seniors the retirement secirity they've earned.

That is why Democrats from both Houses of Congress are signing the Golden Promise, a pledge to oppose Republican efforts to privatize Social Security. America's retirees will not be abandoned.

House Democratic Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CALIF)
September 8, 2006

Politics: THE PRESIDENT'S FAILURES PUT AMERICA AT RISK

2006-09-09T07:57:00.000-05:00

President Bush has been criss-crossing the country recently touting his Administration's record on national security. But this week, Democrats and the Third Way released a report confirming what we have been saying all along: Despite a constant barrage of tough talk and other rhetoric from the White House and its allies in Congress, the President's policies have done little to improve our national security. In fact, in some cases Americans may have been put at greater risk because of the Administration's misplaced priorities and the President's practice of appointing political allies, such as former FEMA director, Michael Brown, to key decision making positions, rather than experienced professionals.

The biggest error of all, however, has been the President's refusal to change course in Iraq while ignoring the real war on terror. Instead of focusing our resources on hunting down al Qaeda and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the President has turned Iraq into a haven and training ground for terrorists, ruined our global image, and let Iran and North Korea further develop their nuclear capabilities.

House Democratic Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (D-CALIF)
September 8, 2006

Politics: MEMBERS RETURN TO CONGRESS, BUT REPUBLICANS KEEP PEOPLE'S BUSINESS ON HOLD

2006-09-09T07:46:00.000-05:00

The House of Representatives reconvened from August recess this week, but the people's business will still have to wait. What was the first item Republicans put on the agenda? Not a fair vote on the minimum wage. Not a plan for Iraq. Not implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Not an answer to high gas prices. Not lowering prescription drug costs for seniors. Not an answer for working families who have been squeezed out of the middle class and into poverty.

Congress voted to issue commemorative coins and voted on the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Though these are worthwhile causes, the 109th Congress is coming to a close and the most vital concerns of the American people have not been addressed.

The real work of running the country will be put on hold as long as the Republican leadership puts politics ahead of policy. For that reason, Democrats will oppose any adjournment of Congress and fight Republican attempts to abandon the needs and concerns of the American people.

Democrats will resist adjournment until real work is done.

House Democratic Leader
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CALIF)
September 8, 2006

Iraq: THE BRITISH ABANDONED THEIR BASE

2006-09-09T06:20:00.000-05:00

A BRITISH HARBINGER OF AMERICAN DEFEAT

LewRockwell
By: Chris Floyd
September 9, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld is fond of historical analogies when pontificating about Iraq; he particularly favors comparisons to the Nazi era and the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II. Unfortunately, any historian will tell you that Rummy's parallels are invariably false, even ludicrous. So we thought we'd give the beleaguered Pentagon warlord a more accurate and telling analogy to chew on.

Try this one Don. Imagine the British occupation troops in, say, Hanover, had been forced to abandon a major base, under fire, and retreat into guerilla operations in the Black Forest---in 1948, three years after the fall of the Nazi regime. And that as soon as the Brits made their undignified bug-out, the base had been devoured by looters while the local, Allies-backed authorities simply melted away and an extremist, virulently anti-Western militia moved into the power vacuum.

What would they have called that Don? "Measurable progress on the road to democracy?" "Another achieved metric of our highly successful post-war plan?" Or would they have said, back in those more plain-spoken, Harry Truman days, that it was "a major defeat, a humiliating strategic reversal, forshadowing a far greater disaster?"

You'd have to wait a long time---perhaps to the end of the "Long War"---to get a straight answer from Rumsfeld on that one, but this precise scenario, transported from Lower Saxony to Maysan province, unfolded in Iraq last week, when British forces abandoned their base at Abu Naji and disappeared into the desert wastes and marshes along the Iranian border. The move was largegly IGNORED by the American media, but the implications are enormous. The UK contingent of the invading coalition has always been the proverbial canary in the mine shaft; if they can't make a go of things in what we've long been told is the "secure south," where friendly Shiites hold absolute sway, then the entire misbegotten Bush-Blair enterprise is well and truly FUBAR.

The Queen's Royal Hussars, 1,200-strong, abruptly decamped from the three-year-old base last Thursday after taking constant mortar amd missile fire for months from the same friendly Shiites. The move was touted as part of a long-planned, eventual turnover of security in the region to the Coalition-backed Iraqi central government, but there was just one problem: the Brits forgot to tell the Iraqis they were checking out earlier---and in a hurry.

"British forces evacuated the military headquarters without coordination with the Iraqi forces," Dhaffar Jabbar, spokesman for the Maysan governor, told Reuters Thursday, as looters began moving into the camp in the wake of the British withdrawal. A unit of Iraqi government troops mutinied when told to keep order at the base---and instead attacked a military post of their own army. By Friday, the locals had torn the place to pieces, carting away more than $500,000 worth of equipment and fixtures that the British had left behind. After that initial, ineffectual show of force, the Iraqi "authorities" stepped aside and watched helpessly as the looters taunted them and cheered the "great victory" over the Western invaders.

The largely notional---if not fictional---power of the Baghdad central government simply vanished while the forces of hardline cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which already controls the local government, stepped forward to proclaim its triumph and guide the victory celebrations in the nearby provincial capital, Amarah. "This is the first city that has kicked out the occupier!" blared Sadr-supplied loudspeakers to streets filled with revelers, as the Washington Post noted in a solid---but deeply buried---story on the retreat.

British officials were understandably a bit sniffy about the humiliation. First, they denied there was any problem with the handover at all: the Iraqis had been notified (a whole 24 hours in advance, apparently), the exchange of authority was brisk and efficient, and the Iraqis had "secured the base," military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge insisted to AP. But when reports of the looting at Abu Naji began pouring in, British officers simply washed their hands of the nasty business. The camp was now "the property of the Maysan authorities and Iraqi Forces [are] in attendance," said Burbridge; therefore, Her Majesty's military would have no comment on the matter. In this casual---not to mention callous---dismissal of the chaos spawned in wake of the Hussars' departure, we can see in miniature the philosophy now being writ large across the country in the Bush administration's "Iraqization" policy: "We broke it; you fix it."

And where are Her Majesty's Hussars now? Six hundred of them have dispersed into guerilla bands in the wilderness, where they will survive on helicopter drops of supplies while they patrol the Iranian border. The ostensible reason behind this extraordinary operation is two-fold, said the dougty Burbridge:

* first, to find out if the Bush administration is up to its usual mendacious hijinks in claiming that the evildoers in Iran are fueling the insrugency among the happily liberated Iraqi people;

* and second, to do a little more of that Iraqization window dressing before finally getting the hell out of Dodge completely, beginning sometime next year, according to reports across the UK media spectrum.

Of course, the good major didn't quite put it like that. "The Americans believe there is an inflow of IEDs and weapons across the border with Iran," he told the Post. "Our first objective is to go and find out if that is the case. If that is true, we'll be able to disrupt the flow." The second is training Iraqi border guards, he added.

Yes, a few hundred men wandering through the wasteland, dependent on air-dropped rations, will certainly be able to seal off an almost 300-mile border riddled with centuries-old smuggling routes. And modern-day Desert Rats tolling up in bristling Land Rovers to isolated villages where Shiite clans span both borders will no doubt be gathering a lot of actionable intelligence from the locals. And of course it is much easier to "train Iraqi border guards" on the fly in the wild than at a long-established base with full amenities and, er, training facilities.

In other words, the British moves makes no sense---if you accept the official spin at face value, i.e., that it's an act of careful deliberation aimed at furthering the Coalition's stated goals of a free, secure, democratic Iraq. But those in the reality-based community will see it for what it is; a panicky, patchword reaction to events and forces far beyond the Coaltion's intentions or control.

The other 600 Hussars driven out of Abu Naji have retreated to the main British camp at Basra---another "safe" city that has now degenerated into a level of violence apparoaching the hellish chaos of Baghdad, the Independent reports. British troops once walked the streets freely, lightly armed, wearing red berets instead of helmets, are now largely confined to the base, except for excursions to help Iraqi government forces in pitched battles against the Shiite militias that control the city. Harsh religious rule has long descended on the once freewheeling port city, again presaging the sectarian darkness now settling heavily across Baghdad.

Just a few months ago, the UK's Ministry of Defence was churning out "good news" PR stories about life at Abu Naji---Such as the whimsical tale of the troops' pet goat, Ben, a loveable rogue always getting into scrapes with the regiment's crusty sergeant major, even though the soldiers "knew he had a soft spot for Ben." The goat, we were told, had enjoyed visits from such distinguished guests as the Iraqi prime minister and the Duke of Kent. Now this supposed oasis of British power has been destroyed, with the Coalition-trained Iraqi troops meant to secure it either fading into the shadows or actively joining in with the rampaging crowds and extremist militias. Meanwhile, the Hussars are reducing to roaming the countryside on vague, pointless, impossible missions, killing time, killing people---and being killed---until the inevitable collapse of the whole shebang.

The goat is gone, the canary is dying. The surrender and sack of Abu Naji is a preview of what's to come, on a much larger scale of death and chaos, as the bloodsoaked folly of Bush and Blair's war howls toward its miserable end.

Iraq: NUMBER OF GIs IN IRAQ HITS HIGH FOR '06

2006-09-08T13:33:00.000-05:00

Washington---The number of U.S. troops in Iraq rose to 145,000 this week, the highest since December and 15,000 more than a month ago.

***Then he'll start pulling out the troops in October, to make it appear that he is reducing the number of troops in Iraq. It's a Republican strategy for the elections. The Repubs what to make it look like things are getting better in Iraq!

Chicago Sun-Times
By: Pauline Jelinek
September 8, 2006

Defense Dept. spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician said Thursday the increase is temporary, and that it owes to a routine rotation of forces---that is, a bump in the numbers. Such a shift lasts for a matter of weeks, he said, as replacement troops arrive and overlaps with troops ending their tours and preparing to leave.

The number stood at about 130,000 in the final days of July, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld temporarily extended the tours of some 3,500 Americans in an effort to stem escalating sectarian violence in the capital city of Baghdad.

***Which isn't working!

HANDOVER CEREMONY

Amid declining American public support for the war and growing calls from Congress for a phase troop withdrawal, Rumsfeld and Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, have repeatedly said that reduction in troops there depends on training Iraqi forces to take control of their country's security as well as political progress toward a stable, functioning government.

U.S.-led forces formally turned over control of Iraq's military command to the Shiite-led government Thursday.

***That's a joke! If you'll think back with me here, I'll explain! In 2005, Army Gen. George Casey said that the Iraqi forces had 3 divisions. (that could have even been in 2004). At the beginning of 2006, the same Genl. went to Capitol Hill and testified that the Iraqi forces had only 1 division! He was questioned why the last time he was there, he told them there were 3, now it's down to 1, what happened? He claims they either quit or went bad. So now, we're back to 1. What the hell kind of progress is that? Evidently, they probably aren't ready either, but they needed to be handed over because it's ANOTHER REPUBLICAN STRATEGY FOR THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS! MAN, THESE REPUBS ARE SOOOO PREDICTABLE!

But the ceremony in the heavily fortfied Green Zone only transferred authority for one of Iraq's ten divisions and its small air force and navy, and it remained unclear how quickly Iraqi forces would be prepared to take over security.

***Maybe they'll be able to hand over another division in about 2 years! This strategy is a joke! I hope you people are waking up out there! YOU DESERVE BETTER THAN A BUNCH OF LIARS!!!! AT LEAST CHANGE THE FACES OF THIS GROUP, WILL YA!

REPORT: NO PREWAR SADDAM-AL-QAIDA TIE

2006-09-08T13:05:00.000-05:00

Here's your Friday Dump Story. They put it out there on Friday's in hope that you will forget about it by Monday!

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

***So you need to remember this when the Bush Administration/Israel come up with their "October Surprises." (You can read that right here on this blog. It was put in today and it's called "WILL BUSH 'OCTOBER SURPRISE' SCAM TRIGGER WORLD WAR III?"

Yahoo News
By: Jim Abrams (AP)
September 8, 2006

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

***This makes me believe that the "October Surprises" from the Repubs will happen because they are just that desperate and they have to save face, since even after Oct. 2005, the Bush Administration continued to lie to the American people!

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

The long-awaited report, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MICH), a member of the committee, is "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The report, 2 years in the making, comes out amid a series of Bush speeches stressing that pursuing the military effort in Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terrorism, and 2 months before that policy will be tested in midterm elections.

The report deals with 2 aspects of prewar intelligence---the role of the Iraqi National Congress and its exile leader Ahmed Chalabi and a comparison of prewar intelligence assessments and postwar findings on WMD's and Saddam's link to terrorist groups.

Politics: POLLSTER PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD

2006-09-08T09:52:00.000-05:00

The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President Bush, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results.

Breitbart
September 7, 2006

Tracy Costin pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Costin, 46, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when she is sentenced November 30.

As part of her plea agreement, Costin agreed to repay $82,732 to the unidentified clients for 11 jobs between June 2002 and May 2004. DataUSA is now known as Viewpoint USA.

According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys.

FBI Special Agent Jeff Rovelli said 50% of information compiled by DataUSA and transmitted to Bush's campaign was falsified, the Connecticut Post reported Thursday.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang said on several occasions when the company was running against a deadline to complete a job, results were falsified. Sometimes, the responder's gender or political affiliation were changed to meet a quota, other times all survey answers were fabricated.

***Very typical of the Repubs! Why do they have to go to these lengths in order to win an election?

WILL BUSH 'OCTOBER SURPRISE' SCAM TRIGGER WORLD WAR III?

2006-09-08T08:11:00.000-05:00

This article appears in the August 11, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

WILL BUSH 'OCTOBER SURPRISE' SCAM TRIGGER WORLD WAR III?

By: Jeffrey Steinberg

On January 11, 2006, keynoting an international webcast in Washington, D.C., Lyndon LaRouche issued a pointed warning about the danger of a new Mideast war. In his remarks, LaRouche spoke of a possible "fake weapons of mass destruction," hoax, orchestrated by Vice President Dick Cheney and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. LaRouche warned:

"We also have a situation in Israel, which is extremely tricky and dangerous, and it involves Bush, but most specifically Cheney, Vice President Cheney. As you know, Ariel Sharon is very seriously ill, is crippled, and will probably never again participate in a government in Israel. Whether he will live or not, is also in question, given his condition. Or whether he's able to function at all, if he lives, is in question.

"The threat is, that a Benjamin Netanyahu, who is one of the ugliest characters on the Israeli scene, of any significance, is in discussion with the circles of Vice President Cheney. And Vice President Cheney would like to have an attack on Syria, by Netanyahu. And if the Israeli forces in this strike attack into Syria, were to occupy some territory, they would haul some evidence from the desert where the Israelis are holding it, which they created for this purpose, to try to "prove" that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction.. but moved them into Syria. But this "evidence" would be moved into Syria by the Israelis from the Israeli desert, where it's being housed in preperation for this operation.

"That's what's going on."

***I would suggest that anyone reading this story, would tell other people about it or copy is and distribute it so that you are not fooled into voting for the Repubs in '06. They have nothing else to run on, so they are going to have to do something to win over the people for what is happening in Iraq. All in all, it really doesn't make a difference, since the Repubs can't get a handle on Iraq and is losing Afghanastan anyway. But this, is ridiculous and yes, I can see them doing this. Better yet, maybe you should write to your representatives or the White House itself and let them know that you are aware of this. If you have 10-year-olds at home, I would start worrying! They can't recruit anymore so their next bet is the DRAFT! Read on for the consequences this could have!

"We could have the entire region of Southeast Asia, blow up. And a lot more soldiers being killed suddenly, because of this complication---[more] U.S. soldiers---than there have been so far.

This is a grim situation, in which virtual treason by the Vice President of the United States, who is a known liar, threatens civilization, and our civilization here in particular."

OUR DECISION TO PUBLISH

Now, in recent weeks, EIR specialists have received a series of new reports from qualified U.S. and Israeli sources, suggesting that a desperate Cheney-Bush White House is pushing a number of "October Surprise" schemes, all aimed at salvaging the November 2006 midterm U.S. House and Senate elections for the Republican Party---regardless of the fact that any one of these reckless schemes could trigger a plabetary plunge into war.

The information arriving at the doorstep of EIR came from distinct and unconnected intelligence circles, with proven, albeit not always perfect track-records of accuracy. Those reports, in turn, have been cross-checked with experts from a number of countries and agencies, who have, in some cases, added their own assessments or details. Given this pattern of warnings, the editors of EIR concluded that it was necessary to publish this report, with the appropriate caveats stated upfront.

As events careen further and further out of control in the extended Southwest and Central Asia region, particularly in Iraq and Afghanastan, and as the world moves ever closer to a chain-reaction financial catastrophe, the level of desperation in and around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will reach earthquake proportions. As one senior intelligence officer commented on the "October Surprise" prospects, "It is totally within the realm of probability that sometime before the November elections, the White House, with Bush, Cheney and Rove, will attempt some kind of desperate stunt like a fake WMD incident. Wasn't the Iraq war itself the result of just such a WMD hoax?"

An Israeli source with close ties to the Kadima Party of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert subsequently warned that the scheme that LaRouche warned of in his Jan. 11 webcast, may be a live feature of Israel's ongoing version of Lebanon, despite the fact that saner elements within the Israeli military reportedly consider such a planting of fake WMD evidence on Syrian territory by Israeli forces to be "not credible," and to carry the risk of highly damaging political "blowback," were Israel to be implicated in such a fradulent scheme.

***What else is he supposed to say? He has close ties to the Kadima Party!

STRANGE ENCOUNTER IN THE ROCKIES

The suspicion that the "October Surprise" scheme is live has been further tweaked by the fact that Vice President Cheney and ex-Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu held a now-famous weekend meeting in mid-June, at the Beaver Creek, Colorado conference of the American Enterprise Institute. Netanyahu widely advertised that he delivered messages from Cheney back to the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in a session of "ex-prime ministers" that he attended immediately on his return to Israel. Weeks later, Israeli fighter jets were carpet-bombing Lebanon, in preperation for a full-scale Israeli Defense Force invasion, that has already struck into the Bekka Valley area of Lebanon near the Syrain border.

Regional sources warn that, while it may be the case that neither Israel not the U.S. government intend to see the Lebanon war extend across the border into Syria, the longer the Israeli military action inside Lebanon goes on, the greater the likelihood that Israeli forces will extend the operations into Syrian territory. Were Syria to be drawn into the war by such Israeli actions, it is uncertain how long Iran would remain on the sidelines. Then, a general Mideast war would be unstoppable.

A recent report by Deutsche Bank warned that any Middle East conflict that extended to Syria and Iran would almost certainly lead to the shutting off of the Straits of Hormuz, the main route of oil tankers from the Persian Gulf. And this would trigger $200-a-barrel oil.

OTHER 'OCTOBER SURPRISES'

One very reliable U.S. intelligence source warned in recent weeks that another "October Surprise" scheme is also pursued by the Cheney circles. This scheme involves Iranian arms dealer and notorious Iran-Contra fabricator Manucher Ghorbabifar. According to the source, during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, Iran briefly occupied an Iraqi island, and confiscated Iraqi chemical weapons, which they were able to reverse engineer. Now, Ghorbanifar is reportedly attempting to obtain several of those "Iraqi" chemical weapons cannisters, to deliver to U.S. Special Forces units inside Iraq, who would plant them inside the country, and "discover" the Iraqi WMD at an appropriate moment, just before the November elections in the U.S. Ghorbanifar is reportedly scheming to get $25M for delivering what will be labeled relativelt new "Iraqi chemical weapons."

***You people must get this out to others before it happens!

Yet another scheme to bail out the Republicans in November has been reported from an American intelligence specialist with close ties in Pakistan. The source stated that the U.S. has now all but given up on the Hamid Karzai government in Kabul, Afghanastan, which is facing a mounting insurgency from the Taliban, who have now struck deals with some of the country's leading drug lords (Afghanastan is producing an estimated 90% of the world's opium). According to the source, while working throught the Pakistani ISI, the Bush Administration is signaling a willingness to allow the Taliban to come back into power---in return for the elimination of Osama bin Laden and the number two Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawaheri.

European and Arab diplomatic sources contacted through EIR's Western European offices, expressed their own belief that the Bush White House, particularly Cheney and Rove, could be counted on to attempt a desperate "October Surprise" operation. One German Middle East expert also cautioned against taking too narrow a view of the potential targets. He warned that events inside Ibero-America offered another target of opportunity for such mayhem, particularly given the instability in Cuba that could result from Fidel Castro's death, and ongoing plans to blow up the situation inside Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez is the man the Bush Administration loves to hate.

Ironically, the danger of a major asymmetric warfare attack inside the United States is also growing by leaps and bounds---not because of some White House wet dreams about a "new 9-11" to rouse the American people behind George W. Bush---but because of the rapidly accelerating hatred of the United States throughout the world, particularly the Muslim world, as the result of the perception that Washington is steering Tal Aviv's murderous "shock and awe" assault on sovereign Lebanon.

VA Issues: EVANS (D-IL) URGES "BLUE WATER" VETERANS AND SURVIVORS TO FILE CLAIMS

2006-09-08T07:29:00.000-05:00

EVANS URGES "BLUE WATER" VETERANS AND SURVIVORS TO FILE CLAIMS WITH VA FOR DISABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH AGENT ORANGE

Washington, D.C.---Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL), ranking Democratic member of the House Veterans' Affaits Committee and senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, urges veterans and their survivors who have been exposed to Agent Orange in the territorial waters of Vietnam to file claims for disability compensation with the Dept of VA in light of a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. VA has 60 days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision.

In Haas v. Nicholson, the Court held that veterans who served in the waters offshore of Vietnam and who contracted a disease related to exposure to Agent Orange type herbicides did not have to prove that they stepped on the land of Vietnam in order to qualify for compensation.

"I want to make veterans and military families aware of their potential eligibility for service-connected compensation as the result of this court decision. It is important for veterans and survivors to apply for benefits now, so that their eligibility can be evaluated under the court ruling," said Evans. "Under earlier VA Agent Orange regulations, which were later invalidated, some veterans lost benefits because they never applied for them. I do not want to see that happen again," continued Evans.

Evans recommends that veterans who received the Vietnam Service Medal or who served in the territorial waters off Vietnam file a claim for service-connection of disabilities that have been associated with exposure to Agent Orange. Examples of these disabilities include: Chloracne, Type 2 Diabetes, Hodgkin's Disease, Chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Prostate cancer, Respiratory cancers and Soft tissue sarcomas. Survivors of veterans who died from such disabilites may be eligible for VA-provided Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, as well.

"I hope this information will be useful to veterans and their survivors. I also encourage the VA to work with veterans seeking assistance in filing service-connection claims for benefits," added Evans. Additional information concerning the case may be found on the Web site of the National Veterans Legal Services Program.

From the Office of Lane Evans (D-IL)
September 6, 2006

Illinois Politics: FORMER GOVERNOR RYAN (R) GETS 6-1/2 YEARS

2006-09-08T07:10:00.000-05:00

***Good news is always better late then never!

Former Gov. George Ryan, (another Republican), was sentenced to 6-1/2 years in prison on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, for his historic conviction on racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction and other charges.

Following a 5-1/2 month trial, a federal jury convicted Ryan in April of steering state business to cronies in return for gifts, gutting corruption-fighting efforts to protect political fundraising and misusing state resources for political gain.

He was the third governor in Illinois history to be convicted of wrongdoing.

Lawyers for Ryan have vowed to appeal his conviction, focusing on U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's decision to oust 2 jurors eight days into deliberations for concealing arrest records during jury selection months earlier. She added 2 alternates and ordered deliberations restarted.

Ryan facd up to 10 years in prison under advisory federal sentencing guidelines.

Prosecutors argued that Ryan deserved a longer sentence than Scott Fawell, Ryan's former top aide who is serving 6-1/2 years in prison.

But Ryan's attorneys argued that the 72-year-old former governor likely would die in prison if he received that long of a sentence. They sought a 2-1/2 year prison term, citing his good works and family health issues.

Ryan was convicted April 18 along with businessman-lobbyist Larry Warner of racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud and other charges.

***This man deserves everything that he gets. It seems that when someone gets into politics, they think they have the power to reign over the people and can rule them like a king. The power gets to their heads so they start breaking the laws. Someday, hopefully the Bush Administration will have to pay for their part in breaking the laws. Topinka, who is running for Governer of Illinois was invloved in a lot of corruption. If she gets into office, she will do the same thing a Ryan, since she condoned everything that he had done. People know a lot more about her that she thinks.

Chicago Tribune
By: Matt O'Connor
September 6, 2006

Politics: PELOSI URGES HASTERT NOT TO INJECT CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUES INTO 9/11 RESOLUTION

2006-09-07T21:49:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON---House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to Speaker Hastert today urging him to work with Democrats to write a bipartisan resolution marking the anniversary of September 11 that is modeled from last year's resolution and is free of controversial politicl issues.

U.S. Newswire
September 7, 2006

Below is the context of the letter:

September 7, 2006

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, United States House of Representatives, H-232, The Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Earlier this week, I wrote to you urging that the resolution commemorating the 5th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which will be considered next Tuesday by the House, reflect the solemnity of the anniversary. My request, and my continuing hope, is that this resolution avoid any semblance of partisan politics, and toward that end, I suggested that we model this year's resolution on the version approved by the House last year on a nearly unanimous basis.

The draft resolution that you sent to my office last evening unfortunately injects controversial political issues into a subject that must remain free of partisan and political rhetoric. While properly reflecting the outrage of our nation over the attacks of September 11 and praising both U.S. and foreign law enforcement officials who have investigated and thwarted potential terrorist attacks, the draft text contains several sections praising the work of the Congress and referencing legislation that was highly controversial on a bipartisan basis.

It is inappropriate, in this solemn and commemorative resolution, to reference legislation which generated bipartisan opposition and controversy. Inclusion of these sections introduces an unwelcome and totally unnecessary partisan tone to a resolution that must be above politics. This is not a time to praise Congress; it is time to offer our sympathies to the families of those who suffered losses on September 11.

I continue to offer the resources of my office to work together with your staff to craft a 9/11 resolution that expresses our deep sympathies to the families of those who lost loved ones and which reasserts our bipartisan commitment to protecting the American people, combating international terrorism, and providing real security and American leadership throughout the world.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader

Politics: NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS DECLINES TO 32-MONTH LOW

2006-09-07T08:50:00.000-05:00

The number of Americans calling themselves Republicans has fallen to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Just 31.0% of American adults now say they're affiliated with the GOP. That's down from 37.2% in October 2004 and 34.5% at the beginning of 2006. These results come from Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys of 15,000 voters per month and have a margin of sampling error smaller than a percentage point.

Rasmussen Reports
September 2006

The number of Democrats has grown slightly, from 36.1% at the beginning of the year to 37.3% now.

Those who claim to be unaffilitaed have increased to 30.8% this month. That's the highest total recorded since Rasmussen Reports began releasing this data in January 2004.

Add it all together and the Democrats have their biggest net advantage. More than 5 percentage points since January 2004. In the first month of 2006, the Democrats' advantage was just 1.6 percentage points. Last month, 32.8% of adults said they were Republicans and 36.8% identified themselves as Democrats.

While the party affiliation trends continue moving in the Democrats' direction, the battle for control of the Senate keeps getting closer. Our September 1 update of the Senate Balance of Power summary shows Republicans likely to emerge from election 2006 with 50 seats. Democrats with 47, and 3 in the Toss-Up category.

The President's Job Approval ratings continue to hover around the 40% mark and voters everywhere believe the political system is badly broken.

Please keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not Likely Voters. Republicans typically do a bit better among Likely Voters (in fact, the 2 parties ended up even among those who showed up to vote in 2004).

This national telephone survey of 15,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August, 2006.

Veterans Issues: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOMELESS VETS TO GET HELP AT STAND DOWN

2006-09-07T08:24:00.000-05:00

Three day event offers food, shelter, clothes and other aide.

Record Searchlight
By: Jim Schultz
via: VA Watchdog/Larry Scott
September 1, 2006

ANDERSON---Homeless north state veterans could get a helping hand Oct.13-15 during "Stand Down 2006" at the Shasta District Fair grounds.

Sponsored by the North Valley Stand Down Association in Redding, the 3-day event is designed to help veterans in need by providing services such as food shelter, clothing and health screenings, as well as VA and Social Security benefits counseling.

It will also provide referrals for other important services, such as housing, employment and substance abuse treatment.

The nonprofit group, established earlier this year, estimates there are 2,700 homeless veterans and their families living in the area between Marysville and the Oregon border.

This is the first collaborative stand down planned in Shasta County, but the event has been held throughout the nation, starting in the late 1980s. according to the U.S. Dept. of VA.

The first such event was organized in 1988 by a group of veterans in San Diego, and since then it has been effective in reaching out to homeless veterans, the VA says.

The VA estimates that more than 200,000 veterans and their families were helped by stand downs between 1994 and 2000.

According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the events are modeled after the stand down concept used in the Vietnam War, which was designed to provide safe retreat for units returning from combat.

Secure base camp areas allowed troops to take showers, obtain clean uniforms, eat warm meals, receive medical care, read their mail and write letters, it said.

Those wishing to donate money or volunteer to help in the upcoming event may do so by contacting the North Valley Stand Down Association, P.O. Box 991088, Redding, CA 96099-1088.

Further information may also be obtained by calling Levin Marshall, veterans representatitve for the state Employment Development Department in Redding, at 225-2194.

Economy: THE CENSUS BUREAU REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE FALSE, ON POVERTY AND INCOMES

2006-09-07T08:19:00.000-05:00

Sept. 2, 2006 (EIRNS)---"They are lying their heads off" to conceal an ongoing U.S. economic collapse was Lyndon LaRouche's response to international media coverage of the U.S. Census Bureau's major annual report. LaRouche commented that the people who wrote the public report "had to have been using a Bush League calculator."

The Census Bureau's "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2005" was presented to the media on the morning of Aug. 29 with three basic conclusions: Americans' median income gained; poverty stopped rising; but more Americans lacked health insurance. The first two conclusions---which dominated much national and international coverage of the report as "an indicator of the U.S. economy"---are false. Furthermore, the same fabrication characterized the report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on August employment and wages, released three days later on Sept. 1.

The Census Bureau measured its income data against completely fraudulent standards: The Consumer Price Index (CPI), systematically falsified by several decades of applying "quality adjustment factors" to reduce the apparent prices of goods, and "dedonic indices" and "substitution formulae" to remove inflating goods from the CPI altogether, and the long out-of-date official "Federal poverty line."

But the Bureau found---even against the laughable increase the CPI was permitted to show in 2005---that the "real" earned incomes of the great majority of American workers---the non-supervisory employees, those outside the upper 20 percentities by wealth---fell substantially again in 2005, for the fifth year. The median income was 1.8% for men and 1.3% for women. Also for workers' households: the median real income did not rise, but fell by 0.7% for all households of those under 65 years of age. The wealthiest 20%'s real earnings increased, their share of income reached a record 51%; the rest fell.

As to poverty---any real measure of basic household subsistence---after 20 years of rapidly inflating medical-care costs, almost a decade of skyrocketting housing costs, six years of energy-price spikes, and ballooning household debt---would find the "poverty line" for a family of four not at the official $19,000 but at $36-40,000 annual income; it would find not 37 million, but 55-60 million Americans fallen into poverty. The poorest counties and poorest regions in the country got poorer in 2005---as major newspapers of the former industrial belt, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, made clear, even amid the lying reports of the Census Bureau's findings. Even officially, the percentage of American families in "deep poverty"---half the official "poverty line" income---went up.

Again on Sept. 1, the BLS reported that average weekly earnings of U.S. employees had dropped by another substantial 1% from July to August 2006, as more industrial jobs disappeared---but media reporting, fastening on a miniscule 0.1% rise in the average hourly wage, lied that "Americans' earnings rose."

This Bush Administration and media lying aims to deny the real, ongoing collapse in the United States' underlying economy, and the breakdown of the system of extreme "globalization" worldwide.

VA Issues: GAO REPORT SHOWS TRICARE PRIVACY INADEQUATE-OUTSOURCING A MAJOR CONCERN

2006-09-07T07:30:00.000-05:00

"These findings certainly don't inspire much confidence that sensitive personal information is being adequately protected."

Just what veterans need...more bad news about personal information security.

Outsourcing (PRIVATIZING) is the prime culprit.

GAO report highlights here...
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06676highlights.pdf

GAO full report here...
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06676.pdf

Information Week
By: Thomas Claburn
via: VA Watchdog dot org
Larry Scott
September 7, 2006

Government Report Finds Health Care Breaches rampant

Agencies and contractors that experienced privacy breaches collectively have access to medical data for more than 100 million Americans.

Over 40% of federal health insurance contractors and state Medicaid agencies reported experiencing a privacy breach involving personal health information in the past 2 years, according to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report released on Tuesday.

The contractors and agencies collectively have access to medical data covering more than 100 million Americans, the report says.

"That's a shocking finding," says Beth Givens, director of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit consumer advocacy group. "It's not only the number of breaches but the sensitivity of the information breached."

The GAO report, "Domestic and Offshore Outsourcing of Personal Information in Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE," examines the role that private firms, federal agencies, and state Medicaid agencies play in administering three of the nation's largest public health insurance programs---Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Defense's TRICARE program.

Beyond noting the pervasiveness of privacy breaches, the report finds that the outsourcing of services involving personal health information is also common. Over 90% of Medicare contractors and state Medicaid agencies and 63% of TRICARE contractors reported some domestic outsourcing in 2005, typically involving anywhere from 3 to 20 U.S. vendors.

While relatively few organizations sent personal health information offshore---33 Medicare Advantage contractors, 2 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) contractors, and 1 Medicaid agency said their domestic vendors had transferred peronal health information offshore---the GAO believes the extent of offshore outsourcing may be underestimated "because many of the federal contractors and agencies did not know whether their domestic vendors transferred personal health information to other locations or vendors."

Givens said the report indicates that there's not enough security for healthcare records. "These findings certainly don't inspire much confidence that sensitive personal information is being adequately protected," she says.

The GAO recommends that the privacy breach notification requirements that currently apply to TRICARE and Medicare FFS contractors should be extended to other Medicare contractors that will deal with personal health information and to state Medicaid agencies.

***How are the Repubs good for national security? All of these little things that nobody thinks about is part of national security!

Domestic Issues: PELOSI: REPUBLICAN CUTBACKS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT LEAD TO INCREASED CRIME

2006-09-06T08:52:00.000-05:00

Washington, D.C.---On August 31, 2006, House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the Bush administration's admission that they have failed to serve local law enforcement:

"The police chiefs are right: Severe Republican funding cutbacks to local law enforcement and the COPS program have led to increased crime.

"The Bush administration, through the Deputy Attorney General, today admitted that 'there are many needs and desires on the part of law enforcement that we have not been able to serve well.'

"In fact, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have cut $2.2B from state and local law enforcement since 2001---a 46% decrease from 2001.

"The American people have seen firsthand the results: Dramatic increases in murders and violent crimes across the nation. Last year, murders rose 4.8%, the largest increase in 15 years.

"The police chiefs know what all Americans know: We must fight crime by putting cops on the streets, not eliminating their positions as the Bush Administration and Republicans have done. Democrats have fought---and will continue to fight---to fund COPS and put cops back on the beat. It is time for a new direction for America."

***So, once again, who is strong on national security? Our police departments are a big part of our national security. The Repubs should be giving them all that they need to go on, not taking it away! Sure, you can see a lot of security at our airports, but what about where it really matters? Where it all starts? In our neighborhoods! Bush and the Repubs are not concerned about the American people. They just don't want their busniesses flown into again!

LET'S FACE IT, 9/11 HAPPENED ON THE REPUBLICANS' WATCH!

COLORADO SOLDIER TO SURRENDER TO ARMY

2006-09-06T08:08:00.000-05:00

The soldier clutched the steering wheel of his pickup truck crammed with his belongings, his pockets stuffed with cash, his eyes darting nervously between the rearview mirror and the road stretching before him.

A million thoughts raced through his mind: What will my parents say? What if the police stop me? Did the soldiers who said they supported me and wished they could do this really mean it?

On Thursday, a year and a half after going absent without leave before his second deployment to Iraq, Army Spc. Mark Wilkerson plans to return to Fort Hood to face his fellow soldiers and superiors.

"I just could not in good conscience go back to a war I felt was wrong," Wilkerson, 22, of Colorado Springs, Colo., said Thursday at Cindy Sheehan's protest camp site.

About 50 protesters joined Wilkerson at Sheehan's site near President Bush's ranch. Roughly a dozen in the group planned to travel with him about 40 miles south to the central Texas Army post near Killeen.

Wilkerson, who said he never left the country but won't reveal where he was, has consulted with an attorney but does not know exactly what penalties he faces. Others have served time in military prisons.

Simple desertion has been decreasing in the military in recent years---about 2,500 troops last year simply didn't show up for work, down from almost 5,000 in 2001, according to the Pentagon public affairs office.

Wilkerson was just 17 when he enlisted in the Army. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of his father and grandparents, who also served in the military. Then after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he felt even more sure of his decision, he said.

Wilkerson went to Iraq at the start of the March 2003 invasion and returned to the U.S. a year later, having lost one friend in his unit. He began seeing more news of Iraqi civilians being killed and reports on whether American companies were profiting from the war, he said.

Wilkerson said his views of the war changed and he realized he could no longer stay in the military, so he applied for conscientious objector status. But his request was denied a month before his unit was to return to Iraq.

He said he was told his appeal would not be considered until after he came back. So Wilkerson decided not to return from the two weeks of approved leave before the January 2005 deployment.

Wilkerson is vague about what he and his wife did after leaving their 2-bedroom Killeen apartment near the central Texas Army post. He said he got jobs, using his real Social Security number, and drove but never flew.

He started wanting more from his life though: school would mean applying for student loans and having people delve into his background, or even "something as stupid as being on a reality show."

When Wilkerson decided to stop his life on the run, he heard that Sheehan's new site near Bush's Crawford ranch was a "war resister refuge."

Sheehan protested for a month last summer near Bush's ranch, but she recently bought a 5-acre lot in town as a permanent site for vigils and as a clearinghouse for information about soldiers' rights to resist deployment to Iraq.

After talking to protesters, Wilkerson finalized his pans recently and came to Crawford. He met with group members camping there, including Veterans Against the War, which Wilkerson has since joined.

Wilkerson, now seperated from his wife, saod he knows some people disapprove of his decision.

"Having gone to Iraq once, I saw what happened there," he said. "I saw what was the right thing to do, and I had to do what was right for me."

Yahoo! News
By: Angela K. Brown (AP)
August 2006

Iraq: PELOSI: "IRAQ WAR IS WEAKENING OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERRORISM"

2006-09-06T07:53:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C.---On Aug 31, 2006, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on President Bush's speech in Salt Lake City to the American Legion:

"Today, once again, President Bush demonstrated that he is in denial about his historic blunder in Iraq. We must win the war on terror, but the war in Iraq is the wrong war. Today, just as it has since the war began, Iraq is weakening our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

"The strain that the Iraq war has put on our military has crippled our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism and has dangerously limited our ability to respond to real challenges to our national security around the world.

"Mr. Bush's failed war in Iraq come at a huge cost, first and foremost in human lives, and at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. It also has a tremendous cost to reputation, damaging our ability to engage other countries in diplomacy to make the world safer.

"Democrats are proposing a new direction with policies that are tough and smart that will make our country safer, our military stronger, and the world more stable."

Politics: GOP CONGRESS BLOCKED CLINTON PUSH FOR ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION

2006-09-06T06:42:00.000-05:00

Pay attention to the dates on this article. I'm going to take you back to 1996 to show you that the Clinton administration and the Democrats tried, long ago for anti-terror legislation that the GOP stopped. The GOP was the majority in the Senate in 1996. It goes to show you that when it came to legislation, Clinton didn't break the law, but Bush is!

America blog dot com
By: John in DC
September 4, 2006

*****CNN, July 30, 1996

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UTAH), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get" ...[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

*****September 4, 2006

So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did, decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop terrorists---stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop September 11---well no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all of the tools he needed to stop the actual Spetember 11. Could September 11 have been stopped of the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

*****July 30, 1996

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terror measures.

There's evan an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tolls he needed to stop Osmam and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

THE REPUBLICANS STOPPED PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM GETTING ALL THE TOOLS HE NEEDED

PRESIDENT WANTS SENATE TO HURRY WITH NEW ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

U.S. News
July 30, 1996

*****July 30, 1996

WASHINGTON (CNN)---President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MISSISSIPPI), doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and try to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out---that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UTAH), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants---chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists---"a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Back to today

***Now, who is weak on national security? It appears to me that maybe, just maybe, September 11th might have been stopped if the REPUBLICANS would have done what President Clinton wanted. The Repubs seem to think it's O.K. that Bush has expanded the wiretapping while breaking the law! Are the Repubs being so boisterous about national security because it all falls in their lap since they wouldn't give Clinton what they wanted. All of the Repubs mentioned in these articles were in office both in 1996 and now.

The Democrats ARE NOT weak on national security. 9/11 HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH AND VERY WELL MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE BEEN STOPPED IF THE REPUBS WOULD HAVE GIVEN CLINTON WHAT HE WANTED TO AVOID ANY FUTURE ATTACKS!

These Repubs should not be re-elected! As a matter of fact, they need to resign!

Janet's Conner

Janet has pass into the gates

Pelosi: Ney Should Resign Today

Pelosi: Nuclear North Korea 'Sould be First Priority Concern of the World'

Pelosi: On Jack Abramoff an White House Officials

Bush Administration Shortchanging Veterans Mental Health Funding

Hear John Laesch on J Dennis Hastert

Reported NIE Shows War in Iraq has hindered Our Ability to Combat Terrorism

Pakistan denies coup rumours while Musharraf away

Bush trying to connect Iraq to the War on Terror

Afghanistan:Rhetoric vs. Reality

Afghanastan: TALIBAN STRENGTH IN SOUTHERN AFGHANASTAN SURPRISED U.S. GENERAL

Veterans Issues: "PERFECT STORM" BREWING IN MILITARY'S MENTAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Politics: STEM CELL ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

Iraq: U.N.: IRAQ DEATH TOLL SURGED OVER LAST 2 MONTHS

Iraq: IRAQO LEADERSHIP FAILS TO LIVE UP TO U.S. HOPES

Afghanastan: WEST WON'T WIN AFGHAN WAR

REAL SECURITY FOR AMERICA

Veterans Issues: PREDATORY LENDERS AND THE MILITARY

Bush Admin: RUMSFELD ADVISOR RESIGNS AS PENTAGON SHAKE-UP LOOMS

Afghanastan: SOLDIERS DESCRIBE FIGHTING IN AFGHANASTAN

Iraq: U.S. HOLDS AP PHOTOGRAPHER IN IRAQ 5 MONTHS

Iran: U.S.-IRAN REPORT BRANDED DISHONEST

Iran: FASCIST NETANYAHU MEETS CHENEY FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF WAR PLANNING

Janet's Conner

CLINTON VS. TERROR, REPUBLICANS VS. CLINTON

SENATOR BYRD CALLS FOR RUMSFELD'S RESIGNATION

Iraq: HALLIBURTON UNIT RISKED CIVILIAN LIVES, LAWSUITS SAY

Illinois Politics: MURDER VICTIMS' RELATIVES RIP TOPINKA (R) FOR GUN JOKE

War on Terror: LIMITS TO SURVEILLANCE BILL BLOCKED

TOP 10 STORIES THE NATION'S MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORED

Veterans Issues: SUPPORT VETERANS' MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS

U.S. INSTITUTIONS, PRESS ASK: IS PRESIDENT BUSH NUTS?

War on Terror: CRITICISM GIVES U.S. JITTERS OVER A FUTURE TORY GOVERNMENT

National Security: PELOSI (D-CA) SAYS "DEMOCRATS STAND UNITED FOR A NEW DIRECTION FOR REAL SECURITY"

DEMOCRATS STAND READY TO PROJECT AMERICA'S POWER TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

A LETTER TO VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

Politics: THE REPUBLICAN RECORD ON BORDER SECURITY

VA Issues: INSURANCE CHANGE COULD COST MILITARY RETIREES

Veterans Issues: GAO REPORT FINDS VA SHORT OF RESOURCES TO ADDRESS HOMELESS VETERANS' NEEDS

Military Issues: REP. MILLER (D-CA) URGES GOP LEADERS TO DROP OPPOSITION TO SUPPORTING MILITARY FAMILIES

Politics: PELOSI: "IT'S TIME FOR REAL LEADERSHIP AGAINST TERRORISM........"

Politics: PELOSI AND REID---URGE NETWORKS TO DEVOTE FAIR COVERAGE TO HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS

AIR FORCE CHIEF: TEST WEAPONS ON TESTY U.S. MOBS

Veterans Issues: "CAN WE TRUST THE INFO WE'RE GETTING ABOUT OUR EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM?"

War on Terror: WHOSE WAR ON TERROR?

AMERICAN AIRLINES STATEMENT REGARDING THE PATH TO 9/11 ON ABC-TV

WORLD REMEMBERS 9-11 BUT NOT MANY CRYING

5 YEARS LATER, SOLIDARITY AND SKEPTICISM

Iraq: NAVY TIMES: NEW REPORT CASTS DOUBTS ON JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR

Afghanastan: TRAPPED IN AFGHANASTAN---PART II

Afghanastan: TRAPPED IN AFGHANASTAN---Part I

Illinois National Guard: ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD SHORT ON EQUIPMENT FOR DISASTERS HERE

PENTAGON VS. THE PRESS

Iraq: ARMY OFFICIAL: ''RUMSFELD FORBADE TALK OF POSTWAR''

Politics: THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS STILL UNDER ATTACK AND STILL NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED

PRIVATIZED WARFARE: THE SUMMER OF DISCONTENT

National Security: 5 YEARS AFTER 9/11: AMERICA IS NOT SAFE ENOUGH

Politics: DEMOCRATS MAKE GOLDEN PROMISE TO DEFEND SOCIAL SECURITY

Politics: THE PRESIDENT'S FAILURES PUT AMERICA AT RISK

Politics: MEMBERS RETURN TO CONGRESS, BUT REPUBLICANS KEEP PEOPLE'S BUSINESS ON HOLD

Iraq: THE BRITISH ABANDONED THEIR BASE

Iraq: NUMBER OF GIs IN IRAQ HITS HIGH FOR '06

REPORT: NO PREWAR SADDAM-AL-QAIDA TIE

Politics: POLLSTER PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD

WILL BUSH 'OCTOBER SURPRISE' SCAM TRIGGER WORLD WAR III?

VA Issues: EVANS (D-IL) URGES "BLUE WATER" VETERANS AND SURVIVORS TO FILE CLAIMS

Illinois Politics: FORMER GOVERNOR RYAN (R) GETS 6-1/2 YEARS

Politics: PELOSI URGES HASTERT NOT TO INJECT CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL ISSUES INTO 9/11 RESOLUTION

Politics: NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS DECLINES TO 32-MONTH LOW

Veterans Issues: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HOMELESS VETS TO GET HELP AT STAND DOWN

Economy: THE CENSUS BUREAU REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE FALSE, ON POVERTY AND INCOMES

VA Issues: GAO REPORT SHOWS TRICARE PRIVACY INADEQUATE-OUTSOURCING A MAJOR CONCERN

Domestic Issues: PELOSI: REPUBLICAN CUTBACKS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT LEAD TO INCREASED CRIME

COLORADO SOLDIER TO SURRENDER TO ARMY

Iraq: PELOSI: "IRAQ WAR IS WEAKENING OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERRORISM"

Politics: GOP CONGRESS BLOCKED CLINTON PUSH FOR ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION